Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https  ://arch  i ve . o rg/detai  Is/te  m pte  rofeveOI  car  r 


/ 


^GLs7'y''0-££- 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE 

— OR — 

The  Criminality  of  Man’s  Social,  Political,  and 
Religious  Equality  with  the  Negro,  and 
the  Amalgamation  to  which  these 
Crimes  Inevitably  Lead. 


Discussed  in  the  Light  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Sciences, 
Profane  History,  Tradition,  and  the  Testimony 
of  the  Monuments. 


BY 

CHARLES  CARROLL, 

ST.  LOUIS. 


ADAMIC  LIBRARY. 


ST.  LOUIS: 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  ADAMIC  PUBLISHING  CO. 
1902. 


COPYRIGHT  1902 
BY 

CHARLES  CARROLL. 


Entered  at  Stationers’  Hall,  London,  England,  1902. 


3^(2. ? 
C 3 /?  T 


IN  GRATEFUL  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  OF  HIS 
FRIENDSHIP,  KINDNESS  AND  LOYAL  SUPPORT  OF 
THE  SENTIMENTS  EXPRESSED  IN  THESE  PAGES, 
THIS  BOOK  IS  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED  TO 
DR.  A.  W.  BOYD,  OF  CHATTANOOGA,  TENNESSEE. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


49515-1 


CONTENTS. 


C3/97 


Chapter  I. 


Unique  Position  of  the  Bible  and  its  Peculiarities — Did  God  Reveal 
to  Adam  the  Great  Events  of  Creation? — Did  Adam’s  Descendants  Lose 
This  Knowledge,  and  Why? — Adam  and  Eve  in  the  Garden  of  Eden 
Under  a Dual  System  of  Laws — Adam  the  Author  of  Arts  and  Letters — 
Adam’s  “Book  of  Precepts,”  a Divine  Revelation — Monotheism  the 
Oldest  Religious  Belief — Noah  and  His  Family  Monotheists — Noah’s 
Descendants  Ultimately  Abandoned  Monotheism,  and  Descended  to 
Atheism  and  Idolatry — The  Mosaic  Record  a Second  Divine  Revelation 
to  Man — Moses  Wrote  the  Pentateuch  Thirty-five  Centuries  Before  the 
Birth  of  Modern  Science — The  Old  Cosmogonies — The  Cosmogony  of 
the  Bible,  Free  From  Error. 


The  Beginning — Creation  and  Formation — Three  Creations — Matter 
the  First  Creation — Matter  not  Eternal — Matter  the  Material  Out  of 
Which  all  Bodies  are  Formed — The  Beginning  a Period  Distinct  From 
the  First  Day  of  the  Creative  Week — The  Book  of  Genesis  Teaches  that 
the  World  Had  a Beginning — The  Book  of  Revelation  Teaches  that  the 
World  Will  Have  an  Ending — John’s  Visions — Our  Earth  the  Only 
Habitable  Globe — There  Were  Other  Worlds  Than  Ours — There  will  be 
Other  Worlds  Than  Ours — The  Production  of  Light  on  the  “ First  Day  ” 
Marked  the  Beginning  of  Time — The  Angel  on  the  Last  Day  will  De- 
clare the  End  of  Time — The  New  Jerusalem — A World,  Like  a Plant  or 
an  Animal,  Has  its  Germ— The  New  Heaven  and  the  New  Earth — The 
Creative  Days  Long  Periods  of  Time  of  Equal  Length — The  Seventh 
Day  of  Equal  Length  with  Each  of  the  Creative  Days — No  Means  of 
Ascertaining  the  Length  of  a Creative  Day. 


Chapter  II. 


.11 


IV 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  III. 

The  Firmament — When  the  Formation  of  the  Heaven  was  Com- 
pleted, the  Formation  of  the  Earth  was  Completed — The  Heaven  En- 
velops the  Earth — The  Heaven  Impervious  to  Water  and  Air,  Though 
Not  Impervious  to  Heat  and  Light — The  “ Dry  Land  ” and  the  “ Seas  ” 
— All  the  Waters  of  the  Universe  Not  on  the  Earth — Water  on  Mars  and 
Other  Planets — 200  or  300  Miles  to  the  Limits  of  the  Earth’s  Atmosphere 
— The  Celestial  Waters  Were  Employed  to  Deluge  the  Earth  in  Noah’s 
Time — The  “ Great  Deep  ” — The  Deluge  Universal — The  Temperature 
of  the  Sun — Explanation  Why  the  Nearer  we  Approach  the  Sun,  the 
Colder  it  Gets— The  Firmament  Confines  the  Earth’s  Atmosphere  and 
Water  to  the  Earth — The  Firmament  Intensely  Cold — The  Earth  Not 
Formerly  a Molten  Mass— The  World  Misled  by  the  Speculations  of 
Atheists — The  Heavens  and  the  Luminaries  are  Different  Formations, 
Were  Made  at  Different  Times,  and  for  Different  Purposes — The 
Heavens  are  Made  of  Ether — The  Stars  Not  Situated  in  Empty  Space— 
The  Luminaries  Produce  the  Light,  While  the  Heavens  is  the  Vehicle 
of  their  Light — The  Harmony  Between  the  Bible  and  Science. 

Chapter  IV. 

There  are  only  Two  Schools  of  Learning,  Creation  and  Natural  De- 
velopment— The  School  of  Creation  the  Most  Ancient — The  Ancients 
Possessed  a Knowledge  of  Astronomy — They  had  the  Telescope — Jose- 
phus Attributes  the  Invention  of  the  Constellations  to  the  Family  of 
Seth — The  Nebular  Hypothesis — La  Place’s  Theory  Based  Upon  an 
Error  as  to  the  Relative  Density  of  the  Planets — The  Nebular  Theory 
Mere  Speculation— Criticisms  on  the  Nebular  Theory — The  Pecularity 
of  the  Atheist  is  That  His  Cosmogonies  are  Always  Based,  on  Mere  As- 
sumption— The  Nebular  Theory  Cannot  Explain  More  Than  a Small 
Fractional  Part  of  the  Phenomena  of  the  Universe — It  Cannot  Explain 
the  Existence  of  the  Ether — La  Place  an  Infidel — The  Ether  the  Largest 
Body  in  the  Universe — The  Bible  Alone  Explains  the  Origin  of  the 
Ether  of  Which  the  Havens  are  Composed. 

Chapter  V. 

The  Inspired  Writer  Silent  as  to  When  the  Earth  was  Made — The 
Earth  Already  Formed  at  the  Opening  of  the  Third  Day,  but  Enveloped 
in  Water — The  Separation  of  the  “Dry  Land”  and  the  “Waters” — 
The  Aqueous  Theory  and  the  Ignuous  Theory — Our  Ignorance  of  the 
Interior  of  the  Earth — Geology  the  Science  of  the  Earth — Plant  Life 
Preceded  Animal  Life  on  the  Earth — The  Characteristics  of  Plant  and 
Animal  Life — Plants  Divided  into  Three  Classes:  Sproutage,  Herb- 


CONTENTS. 


V 


bearing  and  Fruit  Trees — Science  Shows  That  These  Three  Classes  of 
Plants  Made  Their  Appearance  in  the  Order  Stated  in  Genesis — Plant 
Life  Attained  its  Greatest  Luxuriance  in  the  Carboniferous  Age — The 
Climate  of  the  Globe  Identical  From  Pole  to  Pole. 

Chapter  VI. 

The  Sun,  Moon  and  Stars  Designed  for  Light,  and  Other  Purposes 
— No  Such  Thing  as  a Solar  Day  Prior  to  the  Fourth  Creative  Day — The 
Source  from  whence  Heat  and  Light  were  Derived  Prior  to  the  Comple- 
tion of  the  Luminaries — The  Introduction  of  Plant  Life  the  Last  Event 
of  the  Third  Creative  Day — The  Season  Rings  Make  Their  Appearance 
on  the  Forest  Growths — The  Advent  of  the  Seasons — The  Vegetation  of 
the  Permian  Period — The  Sun— The  Size  of  the  Sun  Compared  with  the 
Earth — The  Sun  as  an  Object  of  Worship — The  Sun  the  Source  from 
which  the  Earth  Derives  its  Light  and  Heat — The  Clouds — The  Im- 
mense Amount  of  Heat  Radiated  to  Earth  by  the  Sun — The  Moon — The 
Moon's  Influence  on  the  Tides — The  Moon’s  Distance  from  the  Earth — 
The  Size  of  the  Moon  Compared  with  that  of  the  Earth — The  Benefits 
of  the  Moon  as  a Light  Giver — La  Place’s  Moon — The  Value  of  the 
Moon  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Earth — The  Special  Value  of  the  Moon 
to  Sailors — Foolish  to  Attempt  to  Deprive  God  of  the  Credit  Due  Him  for 
His  Works. 

Chapter  VII. 

The  Animals  Followed  the  Plants — The  Terms  Reptiles  and  Insects 
Discussed — What  is  Included  in  the  Biblical  Term  Fowl — Paul’s  Teach- 
ings as  to  the  Four  Kinds  of  Flesh — The  Mind  Creation  Introduced  on 
the  11  Fifth  Day  ” — The  Vegetable  and  the  Animal  Kingdoms  Mutually  De- 
pendent Sides  or  Parts  of  One  System  of  Life — The  Elements  of  Life  a 
Part  of  the  Original  Creation,  Matter — Mind  Common  to  Man  and  the  An- 
imals— Instinct — Proof  That  Animals  Possess  the  Faculty  of  Reason; 
Actions  of  Dogs,  Monkeys,  etc.,  Cited — Monkeys  Use  Tools. 

Chapter  VIII. 

Classification  of  the  Land  Animals — Cattle,  Creeping  Things,  and 
Beasts — The  Distinction  Between  the  Cattle  and  the  Beasts  not  Based 
upon  the  Nature  of  Their  Food — Cattle  are  Quadrupeds;  Beasts  are 
Bipeds  (Apes) — During  the  Dark  Ages  the  Knowledge  that  the  Ape  is 
a Biped  was  Lost — No  Quadrumana  or  Four-handed  Animal— The  Ape 
Proved  by  Comparative  Anatomy  to  be  a Biped — A Great  Gulf  Separ- 
ates the  Quadrupeds  from  the  Bipeds — The  Gulf  Lies  Between  the 
Quadrupeds  and  the  Apes,  and  not  Between  the  Quadrupeds  and  Man- 
No  Intermediate  Class  of  Creatures  Span  this  Gulf — The  Mosaic  Record 
and  the  Geological  Record  in  Harmony. 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  IX. 

What  is  the  Beast  of  the  Earth? — The  Beast  of  the  Earth  Not  a 
General  Term— The  Beast  of  the  Earth  a Man-eater — The  Beast  of  the 
Earth  and  the  Beast  of  the  Field  Identical — God’s  Judgment  Against 
the  Egyptians — The  Beast  of  the  Field  Has  the  Erect  Posture,  etc. ; 
Speech,  a Hand,  a Foot,  and  When  Associated  with  Man  is  Habitually 
Clothed — The  Beast  of  the  Field  will  Bear  Man  Prolific  Offspring — In 
the  Creation  Man  was  not  Assigned  to  Physical  Labor — The  Beast  of 
the  Field  Designed  as  a Servant — The  Distinction  Between  Cattle  and 
Beasts  is  Shown  by  the  Plagues  Sent  on  the  Egyptians — The  Relative 
Value  of  Cattle  and  Beasts — The  Jew  has  Lost  a Knowledge  of  the 
Language  of  His  Ancestors — The  Hebrew  a Dead  Language  in  Palestine 
More  than  500  B.  C.— The  Aramaic  the  Popular  Language  of  Palestine 
in  the  Days  of  Ezra — The  Scriptures  Translated  into  the  Aramaic — The 
Term  “ Beast  of  the  Field  ” Translated  Ape  in  the  Targum  and  the 
Chaldee — The  Jews  Lost  the  Knowledge  that  the  Ape  is  a Biped. 

Chapter  X. 

The  White  the  Highest  and  the  Negro  the  Lowest  of  the  So-called 
Races  of  Men;  the  Striking  Contrast  in  Their  Physical  and  Mental 
Characters,  etc.— The  White  Pre-eminently  the  Man  of  Civilization — 
The  Savages  are  Negroes  or  Mongolians — The  Gulf  Between  the  White 
and  the  Negro — The  Resemblance  to  a Negro  in  Miniature  of  Pethecia 
Satanas — The  Negro  and  the  Orang  Approach  Each  Other  in  the  To- 
tality of  Their  Organizations — The  Inferiority  of  the  Negro  is  Funda- 
mentally Structural — The  Negro  not  the  Descendant  of  Adam — The 
Negro  Does  not  Belong  to  the  Flesh  of  Man — The  White  and  the  Negro 
are  the  Originals  Whom  God  Made — The  Complexion  of  the  Negro  not 
the  Result  of  Climatic  Influence — Neither  Altitude  or  Latitude  Perma- 
nently Affects  the  Complexion — The  Complexion  Derived  from  the 
Pigment— Albinism  a Disease — The  Physical  and  Mental  Organisms  of 
the  Negro  Compared  with  the  Apes  on  the  One  Side  and  the  White  on 
the  Other — Prof.  Huxley  Proved  the  Negro  a Monkey  and  Pronounced 
Him  a Man;  Proved  Him  a Beast  and  Accepted  Him  as  a Brother — In 
His  Physical  and  Mental  Organisms  He  Differs  from  the  Vrhite;  and  at 
Every  Essential  Point  Approximates  the  Organisms  Below — The  So- 
called  Anthropoids  Unfit  for  Domestic  Purposes — No  One  of  the  So- 
called  Anthropoids  Walk  Like  Man — The  Knowledge  that  the  Negro  is 
an  Ape  was  Lost  Ages  Ago — The  Lower  Apes  Enable  us  to  Identify 
the  Negro  as  an  Ape— The  Negro  Fitted  for  a Servant,  but  on  Account 
of  the  Low  Order  of  His  Mentality  is  Disqualified  for  a Higher  Sphere 
— The  Characteristics  of  the  Negro  Clearly  Identifies  Him  as  the  “ Beast 
of  the  Field.” 


CONTENTS. 


VI 1 


Chapter  XI. 

The  Broad  Distinction  Made  Between  Man  and  the  Animals— Man 
Designed  to  Develop  the  Earth  and  Have  Dominion  Over  the  Animals 
— Man’s  Brilliant  Achievements— The  Narrative  of  the  Creation  Ex- 
tends Through  the  First  Two  Chapters  of  Genesis — Man’s  Physical  Or- 
ganism Formed  Out  of  the  Dust  of  the  Ground—  Man  Derives  His  Phy- 
sical Life  from  Matter — When  Man's  Physical  and  Mental  Organisms 
were  Completed  Man  Might  Have  Lived  and  Multiplied  without  a Soul, 
Like  an  Animal — It  was  not  God’s  Desire  That  Man  Should  Thus  Exist 
on  the  Level  of  the  Brute — God  Desired  That  Between  Himself  and  Man 
there  Should  Exist  the  Close  Relationship  of  Parent  and  Child — God  Gave 
to  Man  a Soul — The  Soul  a Part  of  God's  Substance — Man  Thus  Became 
Immortal — Adam  the  Son  of  God — The  Male  Man  Created  Long  Before 
the  Female  Man — Adam’s  Great  Intellectuality  Displayed  in  Naming 
the  Animals — The  Creation  of  Woman — The  Lofty  Position  of  Woman 
Among  the  Ancients — Man  and  Woman  of  One  Flesh — Sakoontala — 
Plants  a Combination  of  the  Elements  Composed  of  Matter — The  Ani- 
mals a Combination  of  Two  Creations,  Matter  and  Mind — Man  a Com- 
bination of  Three  Creations,  Matter,  Mind  and  Soul — Reproduction  of 
the  Matter  Creation  as  it  Exists  in  Plants — Reproduction  of  the  Matter 
and  Mind  Creations  as  They  Exist  in  Animals — Reproduction  of  the 
Matter,  Mind  and  Soul  Creations  as  They  Exist  in  Man — The  Repro- 
duction of  an  Immortal  Soul  as  Natural  and  Simple  a Process  as  the 
Reproduction  of  a Plant  or  an  Animal — The  Evidence  That  Adam 
Knew  That  He  was  Immortal — Jesus  Christ  the  Begotten  Son  of  God — 
The  Knowledge  of  the  Three  Creations  Lost  in  the  Dark  Ages — Modern 
Theologians  Make  no  Distinction  Between  Mind  and  Soul — The  Broad 
Distinction  Made  by  the  Inspired  Writers  Between  Mind  and  Soul — 
Only  Eight  Souls  in  the  Ark — Adam  and  Eve  in  the  Creation. 

Chapter  XII. 

The  Nebular  Theory  and  the  Theory  of  Descent  Combine  to  Form 
the  General  Theory  of  Natural  Development,  or  the  Theory  of  Evolu- 
tion— Spontaneous  Generation — The  Monera  the  Most  Ancient  Ancestor 
of  Man — Contradictions  of  Haeckel,  Darwin,  and  Huxley — The  Form  of 
the  Monera  and  its  Food,  Habits,  etc. — The  Monera  Propagates  by  Self- 
Division;  it  has  no  Offspring,  Consequently  the  Law  of  Inheritance 
Does  not  Apply  to  it — The  Monera  Beyond  the  Reach  of  Mr.  Darwin's 
Theory  of  Natural  Selection,  or  Survival  of  the  Fittest — The  Monera  of 
To-Day  is  the  Duplicate  of  the  Monera  of  Ages  Ago — The  Theory  of 
Spontaneous  Generation  Based  Upon  a False  Assumption — The  Great 
Gulf  Between  Inorganic  Matter  and  Organic  Life — The  Protamnion — 


Vlll 


CONTENTS. 


The  Development  of  the  Most  Ape-like  Man  Out  of  the  Most  Man-like 
Apes — The  Origin  of  Articulate  Language — No  Remains  Found  of 
Speechless  Man — The  Different  Races  of  Men — The  Development  of  the 
Races  of  Men — The  Zoological  System — Contrast  Between  Scripture 
and  Atheism— Offspring  of  Different  Species  Fertile. 

Chapter  XIII. 

Domestic  Plants  Require  Cultivation — Domestic  Plants  not  Devel- 
oped from  Wild  Originals;  God’s  Special  Gifts  to  Man — Com  Never 
Found  in  a Wild  State — The  Forest  Growths  Never  Developed  from 
Lower  Forms — The  Garden  of  Eden  not  a Myth — The  Magnitude  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden — The  Garden  of  Eden  the  Most  Superb  Estate — Irrigation 
First  Introduced  in  the  Garden  of  Eden — Adam  Commanded  to  Dress 
and  Keep  the  Garden  of  Eden  Before  His  Fall — The  Negro  Did  the  Man- 
ual Labor  in  the  Garden  of  Eden — The  Chase  the  Only  Vocation  of  the 
Negro  Prior  to  the  Creation  of  Man — Man’s  Vocations  Almost  Infinite 
in  Number — Cain  a Farmer — Cain’s  Mixed-Blooded  Descendants  In- 
herited from  Him  Domestic  Plants  and  Animals — Adam  a Metallurgist 
— Cain  Obtained  a Knowledge  of  Metals  from  Adam — Cain’s  Mixed- 
Blooded  Descendants  Inherited  from  Him  a Knowledge  of  Metals,  etc. 
— The  Old  Civilizations  Built  by  Metallurgists — The  White  Equipped 
Physically  and  Mentally  to  Develop  the  Earth — No  Negro  Civilization 
has  Ever  Appeared — Hebrew  not  the  Language  of  Eden — Adam  and 
Eve  Learned,  Cultured  and  Refined — Their  Descendants  Highly  En- 
lightened ; They  Possessed  the  Harp  and  Organ. 

Chapter  XIV. 

Adam  Clark’s  Comment  on  the  Tempter  of  Eve — The  Tempter  of 
Eve  an  Ape — Only  Three  Individuals  Participated  in  Fall  of  Man — The 
Tempter  of  Eve  Possessed  Articulate  Speech,  the  Erect  Posture,  and 
Sufficient  Mental  Ability  to  Deceive  Man — The  Tempter  of  Eve  a Beast 
of  the  Field — Eighteen  Centuries  Ago  the  World  Lost  its  Knowledge  of 
the  Fact  That  the  Negro  is  an  Ape — Catholics — Protestants — The. 
Tempter  of  Eve  a Negress — Social  Equality  with  the  Negro  Man’s 
First  Sin. 

Chapter  XV. 

Cain — Abel — Their  Offering  to  the  Lord — Abel’s  Offering  Accepted 
— Cain’s  Offering  Rejected — Cain’s  Accomplice  in  Crime — God  Married 
Cain  to  His  Paramour — Cain’s  Paramour  not  of  Adamic  Flesh — Differ- 
ence Between  Fornication  and  Adultery — Cain  Took  His  Wife  to  the 
Land  of  Nod — Cain’s  Wife  a Beast — Cain’s  Descendants  Compared  with 
Our  Mulattoes — No  Daughters  Born  to  the  Adamic  Family  Until  After 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


the  Birth  of  Seth — The  Negro  has  no  Soul — The  Mixed-blood  has  no 
Soul — Proof  of  Amalgamation  Amongst  the  Antediluvians — The  Sons 
of  God,  and  the  Daughters  of  Men — God's  Abhorrence  of  Amalgama- 
tion— Almalgamation  Led  to  the  Deluge. 

Chapter  XVI. 

The  Antediluvian  Civilization — Noah  Transmitted  to  His  Descend- 
ants a Knowledge  of  the  Arts  and  Appliances  of  Civilization — Noah 
and  His  Family,  with  Their  Negroes  and  Other  Domestic  Animals,  etc., 
Developed  a Civilization — The  Hamitic  Origin  of  the  Negro — The  Per- 
iod of  Great  Peace  Referred  to  in  the  Popul  Vuh — The  Evidence  of 
Whites  and  Negroes  in  America  in  Ancient  Times — Atheism  Can  Throw 
no  Light  on  These  Old  Civilizations — The  So-called  Malay,  Indian,  and 
Mongolian  the  Offspring  of  Whites  and  Negroes — Americans  Turning 
to  Indians — The  Result  of  Our  Amalgamation  with  the  Negro — How 
Savages  are  Produced — Moral  Faculty — Table  of  Brain  Weights — Off- 
spring of  Whites  and  Negroes  Cannot  Revert  to  the  White  or  to  the 
Negro. 


Chapter  XVII. 

The  Course  of  Amalgamation  in  Ancient  and  Modern  Times  Com- 
pared—The  Literature  of  the  Ancients — Solon’s  Visit  to  Egypt — Plato’s 
History  of  Atlantis — Antiquity  of  the  Theory  of  Descent — Amalgama- 
tion the  Parent  of  Atheism  and  Idolatry — Atheism  and  Idolatry  De- 
stroyed Monotheism — God  Raised  up  the  Nation  of  Israel — God’s  Law 
Against  Amalgamation  and  Idolatry — Jerusalem  the  Religious  Center 
of  the  World — The  Israelites  Descended  to  Amalgamation — Solomon’s 
Black  Concubine — The  Ethiopians — Jeremiah  Forbidden  to  Marry — 
Negroes  and  Mixed-bloods  not  Included  in  the  Plan  of  Salvation — The 
Saviour's  Command  to  Preach  the  Gospel  to  Every  Creature — Paul  Says 
the  Gospel  was  Preached  to  Every  Creature  Under  Heaven — The  Gospel 
not  Preached  to  Negroes  and  Mixed-bloods. 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PAGE. 

Frontispiece. 

I.  Ideal  Scene  of  the  Lias  with  Ichthyosannis  and  Plesiosaurus,  160 

II.  Ideal  Scene,  Landscape  of  the  Liassic  Period,  . . .164 

III.  Geological  Record,  212 

IV.  Female  Hottentot, 259 

V.  Female  Gorilla, 259 

VI.  Profile  View  of  the  Brain  of  the  Orang  Outang,  . . . 270 

VII.  Profile  View  of  the  Brain  of  the  Bushman  Venus,  . . 270 

VHI.  Profile  View  of  the  Brain  of  Gauss,  the  Mathematician,  . 270 

IX.  Eve  and  Her  Tempter, 403 


INTRODUCTION. 


Many  of  my  correspondents  in  different  sections 
of  the  country,  have  assured  me  that,  among  those 
familiar  with  my  writings,  there  is  a wide-spread  de- 
sire to  know  how  I first  became  impressed  with  my 
views  of  the  negro,  as  expressed  in  my  writings. 
To  such  of  my  readers  as  entertain  this  desire,  the 
following  facts  may  prove  interesting: 

When  I was  a boy,  I stopped  one  day  on  my 
way  home  from  school  to  observe  the  tricks  of 
a monkey  that  was  being  exhibited  by  an  Italian 
organ-grinder.  When  I reached  home,  my  father 
informed  me  that  he  had  just  bought  a little  or- 
phan negro;  hastening  to  the  kitchen,  I at  once 
observed  the  striking  facial  resemblance  between  the 
little  negro  and  the  Italian’s  monkey.  His  skull  was 
as  degraded  and  animal-like  as  that  of  the  Neander- 
thal; while  the  expression  of  his  face,  his  movements 
and  gestures  must  have  been  as  fantastical  and  ape- 
like as  those  of  the  Hottentot -Venus.  After  dinner  I 
took  the  little  negro  and  hunted  up  the  Italian  with 
the  view  of  further  observing  the  resemblances  be- 
tween his  monkey  and  the  negro.  The  little  negro 
had  never  before  seen  a monkey,  and  it  would  have 
been  difficult  to  determine  whether  his  antics  of 


xi 


Xll 


INTRODUCTION. 


those  of  the  monkey  were  the  most  ludicrous;  he  at 
least  fully  shared  with  the  monkey  the  attention  of 
the  bystanders.  My  observations  of  the  two  con- 
vinced me  that  the  negro  and  the  monkey  belonged 
to  the  same  family;  and  upon  reaching  home,  I told 
my  father  of  my  observations  and  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  negro  is  an  ape.  My  mother  was 
highly  amused,  but  my  father  was  horrified,  and 
turning  to  my  mother,  he  asked  her  if  she  had  been 
talkingto  me  on  that  subject;  she  replied  that  she  had 
not.  My  father  then  lectured  me  at  length  on 
what  he  termed  my  “ outrageous  views,”  and  forbade 
my  further  discussion  of  the  subject,  assuring  me 
that  if  I ever  repeated  the  offense  he  would  punish 
me  severely.  Sometime  afterwards,  when  my 
mother  and  I were  alone,  I asked  her  if  she  did  not 
believe  the  negro  to  be  an  ape,  but  she  replied  by 
reminding  me  of  my  father’s  injunction,  and  de- 
clined to  discuss  the  question.  But  remembering 
my  father’s  question  to  her,  and  her  manner  on  both 
occasions  when  the  subject  was  mentioned,  I feel  as- 
sured that  I must  have  voiced  her  sentiments,  when 
I declared  the  negro  to  be  an  ape.  However,  she 
died  a few  years  afterwards,  and  I never  questioned 
my  father  as  to  her  sentiments. 

Hoping  that  I would  forget  the  matter,  and  to 
further  his  desire  that  I should  do  so,  my  father 
sold  the  little  negro,  and  I never  saw  him  afterward. 
But,  though  I was  silenced,  I was  still  free  to  observe 
and  reason;  and  the  more  I saw  of  negroes, the  more 
I was  convinced  that  1113"  estimate  of  them  was  correct. 


INTBODUCTION. 


Xlll 


About  twenty  years  ago  I decided  to  investigate 
the  origin  and  history  of  the  negro.  And  just  here 
the  teachings  of  my  Bible-believing  parents  proved 
of  inestimable  value  to  me.  I had  been  taught  from 
childhood  that  the  Bible  was  the  Word  of  God. 
Though  it  must  be  confessed  that  I had  grown  some- 
what skeptical,  not  because  I was  inclined  to  be  so, 
but  because  of  the  absurd  interpretation  placed  upon 
the  Bible  by  those  who  professed  to  understand  it; 
and  I regret  to  say  that  my  father  was  among  the 
number.  For  example:  I would  ask,  What  was  the 

tempter  of  Eve?  I would  be  told  in  all  serious- 
ness that  “it  was  a snake.”  This  was  absurd;  I 
could  never  believe  that  articulate  speech  was  pos- 
sessed by  an  animal  so  low  in  the  scale  of  being  as 
a snake.  And  again  I would  ask,  Who  was  Cain’s 
wife?  I was  told  that  this  was  a “mooted  question,” 
but  that  “ he  must  have  taken  his  sister  to  wife.” 
Yet  I could  see  that  the  Bible  plainly  taught  that 
there  was  no  female  child  born  to  the  Adamic  fam- 
ily until  after  the  birth  of  Seth ; while  it  also  taught 
that  Cain  had  a wife  before  Seth  was  born.  Again, 
I would  ask,  What  did  the  antediluvians  do  which 
so  offended  God  as  to  lead  Him  to  destroy  them  with 
the  deluge?  I was  told  that  “they  were  very  wicked, 
but  that  no  specific  offense  was  charged  against 
them.”  But  it  seemed  to  me  that,  in  addition  to 
punishing  them  with  death,  God  would  desire  to 
make  an  example  of  them;  and  in  order  to  do  this 
it  was  necessary  to  specifically  state  their  offense. 
Again,  I would  ask,  What  offense  did  the  Canaan- 


XIV 


INTEODUCTION. 


ites  commit  which  led  God  to  command  the  Israel- 
ites to  destroy  them,  male  and  female,  and  even  the 
babes  at  their  mother’s  breasts,  and  “leave  nothing 
alive  that  breatheth?”  I was  told  that,  “they  were 
a very  degraded  people  who  worshiped  idols.”  But 
it  occurred  to  me  that  the  little  children  who  had  not 
thus  offended,  might  have  been  spared,  and  taught 
to  believe  in  God.  Such  replies  to  these  vital  ques- 
tions, and  others  of  like  nature,  were  not  only  un- 
satisfactory in  the  extreme,  but  were  well  calculated 
to  engender  skepticism  in  the  mind  of  a student; 
and  I often  think  with  horror  of  how  nearly  they 
came  to  making  an  infidel  of  me,  as  they  have  of 
tens  of  thousands  of  earnest  seekers  after  truth. 
But  even  under  these  discouraging  conditions,  the 
training  of  my  youth  exerted  a restraining  influence 
upon  me.  My  father  was  an  old  Methodist  class 
leader,  and  I am  the  child  of  a Methodist  mother. 
I was  loath  to  renounce  the  Old  Book  which  had  af- 
forded them  so  much  comfort  and  hope.  This  in- 
duced me  in  my  investigation  of  the  negro  to  first 
take  up  the  Bible.  I reasoned  thus:  If  the  Bible 

is  the  Word  of  God;  and  if  the  negro  is  an  ape, 
surely  God  would  not  turn  loose  upon  the  earth  such 
a creature  with  no  record  of  him  by  which  he  might 
be  identified  in  all  ages  of  his  history.  The  result 
proved  the  correctness  of  my  reasoning,  as  the 
pages  of  this  work  will  show. 

I had  partly  written  up  my  Bible  work  on  this 
subject  when  I was  called  home  to  assist  in  nursing 
my  step-mother  who  was  dangerously  ill.  When 


INTRODUCTION. 


XV 


she  had  so  far  recovered  as  to  be  able  to  sit  up,  I 
requested  permission  to  read  my  partly  finished 
manuscript.  I had  not  confided  to  them  nor  to  any 
one  the  fact  that  I was  investigating  and  writing 
upon  any  subject,  so  that  my  request  was  a com- 
plete surprise.  However,  the  surprise  was  agree- 
able in  the  extreme  to  them,  and  my  request  was 
promptly  granted.  The  astonishment  of  those  old 
people  was  only  equaled  by  their  joy,  when  they 
realized  that  their  former  skeptical  boy  was  an 
enthusiastic  believer  in,  and  an  ardent  student  of, 
the  Bible.  Only  the  three  of  us  were  present,  and 
the  scene  was  one  which  is  as  impossible  to  describe 
as  to  forget. 

After  thoroughly  discussing  my  views  and  criti- 
cally investigating  them  in  the  light  of  the  scriptures, 
my  father  and  step-mother  gave  them  their  unquali- 
fied endorsement.  When  I had  completed  my  inves- 
tigations of  the  Bible  and  was  able  to  establish  the 
fact  that  the  negro  figures  throughout  the  scriptures 
as  an  ape — the  “ beast  of  the  field  ” — I turned  my 
attention  to  the  sciences  with  the  desire  of  giving 
my  views  a scientific  backing.  But  I soon  discov- 
ered that  many  of  the  leading  scientific  writers 
utterly  repudiated  the  Bible,  and  that  few,  if  any, 
professed  Christians  accepted  it  as  a whole,  and  ad- 
hered to  it  where  it  conflicted  with  modern  theories. 
Inasmuch  as  my  views  of  the  negro  were  based 
upon  the  Bible,  I realized  that  it  was  necessary  to 
show  that  the  scriptures  were  in  absolute  harmony 
with  the  sciences  at  every  point.  This  imposed  upon 


XVI 


INTRODUCTION. 


me  a further  labor  of  years.  The  result  of  which 
will  be  found  in  the  pages  of  this  book,  and  the  suc- 
ceeding volumes  of  the  series.  In  the  year  of  1899, 
I published  my  views  in  a very  condensed  form  in 
a pamphlet  entitled,  “ The  Negro  not  the  Son  of 
Ham.”  In  1901  I wrote  up  my  views  a little  more  ex- 
tensively and  placed  the  manuscript  in  the  hands  of  a 
publisher  whose  disregard  of  my  rights  as  an  author 
led  him  to  change  the  title  I had  given  the  book — 
“ Man  and  the  Negro  ” — to  a course,  vulgar  one  of 
his  own  selection.  This,  with  his  bombastic  title 
page  which  has  subjected  me  to  the  severest  criti- 
cisms, and  the  general  “ Cheap  John  ” appearance  of 
the  book,  practically  stripped  it  of  all  dignity,  and 
rendered  it  a thing  of  which  I am  heartily  ashamed. 
Though  laboring  under  all  these  disadvantages,  the 
book  had  an  extensive  sale.  This,  and  the  many 
letters  I have  received  from  all  sections  of  the  coun- 
try endorsing  my  views,  encourages  me  to  write 
them  up  more  elaborately  and  publish  them  in  a 
series  of  which  The  Tempter  of  Eve  is  the  first 
volume. 


The  Author. 


/ 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Antediluvian  Bible. 

“Eternal  Spirit!  God  of  truth ! to  whom 
All  things  seem  as  they  are ; thou  who  of  old 
The  prophet’s  eye  unsealed,  that  nightly  saw, 
While  heavy  sleep  fell  down  on  other  men, 

In  holy  visions  tranced,  the  future  pass 
Before  him,  and  to  Judah’s  harp  attuned 
Burdens  which  made  the  pagan  mountains  shake 
And  Zion’s  cedars  bow — inspire  my  song; 

My  eye  unscale;  me  what  is  substance  teach, 
And  shadow  what,  while  I of  things  to  come, 

As  past  rehearsing  sing  the  Course  of  Time. 

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ 

The  muse,  that  soft  and  sickly  wooes  the  ear 
Of  love,  or  chanting  loud  in  windy  rhyme 
Of  fabled  hero,  raves  through  gaudy  tale, 

Not  over  fraught  with  sense,  I ask  not;  such 
A strain  befits  not  argument  so  high. 

Me  thought,  and  phrase,  severely  sifting  out 
The  whole  idea,  grant;  uttering  as ’t is 
The  eternal  truth. — Pollock. 

The  Bible  occupies  to-day,  as  it  has  in  all  ages 
of  its  history,  a unique  position  in  the  literature  of 
the  world.  Among  the  many  peculiarities  which  dis- 
tinguish it,  the  following  are  perhaps  the  most 
peculiar : 


17 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


\ 


1.  It  purports  to  be  of  supernatural  origin,  in 
that,  it  was  written  by  men  whom  God  selected,  and 
to  whom  He  communicated  the  knowledge  which 
He  desired  them  to  impart  to  their  fellow-men. 
Thus,  it  claims  to  be  literally  and  truly  the  word  of 
God,  conveying  to  us  from  the  fountain  of  all  wis- 
dom and  truth,  a knowledge  which  is  essential  to  our 
welfare  both  in  time  and  in  eternity,  and  which  was 
not  obtainable  from  another  source.  Hence,  it  de- 
mands of  all  men  that  careful  consideration  and 
respect,  which  the  creature  should  accord  to  the 
utterances  of  his  Creator,  or  the  child  to  the  teach- 
ings of  its  parent. 

A perusal  of  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Genesis  reveals  to  us  a clearly  defined  plan  of  crea- 
ation,  in  which  the  principal  events  are  stated  in  the 
order  of  their  occurrence.  These  various  events  oc- 
curred in  stated  periods  of  time  described  as  the 
“first  day,”  the  “second  day,”  the  “third  day,”  and 
so  on  ; the  whole  terminating  in  the  creation  of  man 
on  the  “ sixth  day.”  It  is  claimed  that  God  selected 
and  inspired  Moses  to  write  this  narrative  of  the 
creation.  Hence,  it  is  termed  by  some,  “ The  Mosaic 
account  of  Creation;”  by  others,  “The  Mosaic  Rec- 
ord.” 

2.  The  Mosaic  Record  teaches  that  the  material 
— universe  with  all  its  phenomena  was  created  by  God 

for  a definite  purpose.  Hence,  it  is  artificial — the 
product  of  Divine  art;  and  the  laws  which  govern  it 
are  God’s  laws. 

3.  It  draws  a broad  distinction  between  man 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


19 


and  the  animal,  and  this  distinction  is  maintained 
throughout  the  scriptures.  It  teaches  (1)  that,  in 
obedience  to  God’s  command,  the  waters  and  the 
earth  brought  forth  the  animals  after  their  kind; 
while  God  created  man  in  His  own  image.  (2) 
No  specific  design  is  given  as  to  why  God  made 
the  animals ; neither  were  they  assigned  to  any  spe- 
cific task  beyond  increasing  and  multiplying,  and 
were  simply  placed  under  man’s  dominion  after  his 
creation.  Hence,  the  animal  is  responsible  to  man. 
(3)  The  design  of  God  in  creating  man,  is  specifi- 
cally stated ; and  after  his  creation,  man  was  assigned 
to  this  specific  work.  Hence,  man  must  respect  the 
design  of  God  in  creating  him,  and  must  answer  to 
God  for  the  manner  in  which  he  discharges  the  du- 
ties to  which  he  was  assigned  in  the  Creation.  (4) 
That  the  animals  were  made  in  great  numbers,  and 
in  great  variety ; while  man  was  created  a single  pair. 
(5)  That  there  are  three  distinct  classes  of  animals, 
which  made  their  appearance  in  the  order  stated: 
fish,  fowl,  and  beast;  that  these  classes  of  animals  are 
each  separate  and  distinct  from  the  others,  and  were 
assigned  to  different  spheres, — the  fish  to  inhabit  the 
waters ; the  fowl  to  fly  above  the  earth  in  the  open 
firmament  of  heaven ; and  the  beast  to  occupy  the 
dry  land.  On  the  other  hand,  man’s  dominion  ex- 
tends over  the  entire  globe,  though  for  reasons 
stated,  his  immediate  place  of  abode  would  be  the 
dry  land.  (6)  That  the  male  and  female  animal  of 
the  different  families  or  species, — whether  of  fish,  or 
fowl,  or  beast, — originated  in  the  same  manner,  and 


20 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


were  brought  forth  simultaneously.  Hence,  they 
were  at  once  capable  of  reproducing  their  kind. 
But  that  God  first  created  in  His  own  image  the  male 
man,  and  at  a later  period  completed  his  creation, 
by  making  the  female  man  out  of  the  male  man. 
Thus,  for  a considerable  period,  prior  to  the  advent 
of  woman,  the  male  side  or  part  of  the  Adamic  Cre- 
ation lived  upon  the  earth  without  the  companion- 
ship of  the  female  by  whom  he  might  beget  offspring 
“in  the  image  of  God.”  (7)  That  the  animals  were 
brought  forth  and  allowed  to  roam  promiscuously  in 
their  different  spheres, — the  fish  in  the  water,  the 
fowl  in  the  air,  and  the  beasts  on  the  dry  land ; their 
actions  were  not  restrained  by  law ; hence,  they  were 
held  to  no  legal  responsibility  for  their  conduct,  but 
were  governed  solely  by  those  attributes  of  the  mind 
which  are  commonly  termed,  instincts ; that  no  part 
of  the  substance  of  God  enters  into  their  composition 
to  form  a link  of  kinship  between  Himself  and  them; 
that  they  are  merely  the  creatures , not  the  kinsman , 
of  God.  Hence,  no  vestige  of  immortality  distin- 
guishes them  from  the  plant,  or  the  planet ; mere 
creatures  of  time,  they  cannot  survive  the  end  of 
time;  born  of  the  earth,  they  must  perish  where  they 
^ had  their  birth.  But  that,  in  the  Creation,  God  in- 
corporated a part  of  His  substance  with  man’s  physi- 
cal and  mental  organisms,  thus  forming  a link  of 
kinship  between  Himself  and  man,  which  he  can 
transmit  through  pure  Adamic  channels  to  his  off- 
spring. This  part  of  the  substance  of  God  which  the 
Creator  bestowed  upon  man  is  described  in  scripture 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


21 


as  the  “ Soul it  is  the  soul  that  is  the  immortal 
part  of  man.  Hence,  his  possession  of  a soul,  itself 
a part  of  the  substance  of  God,  distinguishes  man 
from  the  animal,  as  the  possession  of  mind  distin- 
guishes the  animal  from  the  plant ; and  when  man’s 
physical  and  mental  organisms  are  dissolved,  his 
soul  will  take  its  flight  from  the  scenes  of  time  to  an 
endless  existence  in  the  realms  of  eternity.  And  in 
the  Creation,  man,  unlike  the  animals,  was  assigned 
to  a fixed  place  of  abode,  in  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
which  God  prepared  for  him,  and  which  He  com- 
manded him  to  keep  and  cultivate.  The  narrative 
of  Creation  is  followed  by  a narrative  of  many  of  the 
principal  events  in  man’s  history  from  the  Creation 
down  to  a few  decades  after  the  birth  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

4.  When  we  compare  the  age  of  the  narrative 
of  Creation,  as  we  find  it  in  the  Bible,  with  the  age 
of  man,  according  to  this  narration  we  find  that  man 
existed  upon  the  earth  thousands  of  years  before 
the  birth  of  Moses,  who  is  accredited  with  its 
authorship.  This  fact  suggests  to  our  mind  the 
following  inquiries:  If  a full  and  correct  knowl- 

edge of  the  great  events  described  by  Moses  in 
the  order  of  their  occurrence,  together  with  a 
knowledge  of  man’s  kinship  with  God;  the  de- 
sign of  God  in  creating  him,  and  the  laws  which 
God  enacted  for  his  government  are  essential  to 
man,  why  was  it  not  revealed  to  him  in  the  Crea- 
tion ? And  if  it  was  revealed  to  him,  when  did  he 
lose  it?  Was  it  suddenly  lost?  Did  the  whole 


22 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


Adamic  family  simultaneously  agree  to  renounce 
monotheism  and  adopt  other  beliefs?  The  thought 
is  inadmissable!  History  and  our  personal  expe- 
rience and  observation  combine  to  teach  us  that  men 
cling  tenaciously  to  their  ancestral  beliefs ; and  the 
fact  that  this  is  especially  true  of  their  religious  be- 
liefs, goes  far  to  prove  that  the  loss  of  this  knowledge 
was  accomplished  by  a very  gradual  process,  extend- 
ing through  a long  period  of  time.  Whatever 
differences  of  opinion  upon  this  subject  may  exist 
in  the  minds  of  men,  we  feel  assured  that  all  will 
agree  (1)  that,  if  God  revealed  this  knowledge  to 
Adam,  his  decendants  lost  it  at  some  period  in  their 
history  prior  to  the  time  of  Moses;  or,  that  at  the 
time  of  Moses  they  retained  only  fragments  of  it,  so 
corrupted  by  errors  and  superstitions  as  to  render  it 
practically  valueless.  (2)  That  the  loss  of  this 
knowledge  was  simply  an  effect,  which,  like  all  effects 
is  traceable  to  a cause.  But  what  was  this  cause  ? 
What  demoralizing  course  of  conduct,  persistently 
pursued  for  ages  in  every  portion  of  the  earth,  finally 
resulted  in  stripping  man  of  this  essential  knowl- 
edge; or,  that  so  corrupted  it  as  to  strip  it  of  all 
practical  value,  thus  reducing  him  to  such  ignorance 
of  these  most  important  subjects  as  to  render  it  ne- 
cessary for  God,  in  His  mercy,  to  make  a second 
revelation  to  man  of  this  essential  knowledge  as  we 
have  it  to-day  in  the  Mosaic  Record  ? The  solution  of 
this  question  necessarily  requires  a careful  investi- 
gation of  the  history  and  associations  of  man  from  the 
creation  down  to  our  day ; for  the  very  nature  of  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


23 


subject,  its  far-reaching  consequences,  its  over- 
whelming importance,  coupled  with  our  earnest  de- 
sire to  do  justice  to  it,  forbids  the  closing  of  our  in- 
vestigations upon  reaching  the  time  of  Moses.  The 
result  of  our  investigations  will  be  found  in  the 
following  chapters  of  this  work.  For  the  present 
we  shall  confine  our  inquiries  to  the  question  as  to 
whether  God  revealed  to  Adam  a knowledge  of  the 
great  events  of  the  Creation,  which  his  descendents 
lost,  thus  necessitating  a second  revelation  of  this 
knowledge,  together  with  the  history  of  man  and  his 
associations  and  their  ruinous  results  as  we  have  it 
in  the  Pentateuch. 

We  feel  assured  that  all  fair-minded  men  will 
agree  with  us  in  the  following  conclusions  : (1)  If 

it  could  be  shown  that  God  created  man  and  turned 
him  loose  upon  the  earth,  like  an  animal,  without 
revealing  to  him  a knowledge  of  the  existence  of 
God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe;  nor  of  his  kin- 
ship with  God;  nor  of  his  immortality;  nor  of  the 
design  of  God  in  creating  him  ; nor  of  the  relations 
which  God  desired  him  to  maintain  toward  the  ani- 
mals ; and  had  assigned  him  to  no  specific  task ; and 
had  enacted  no  laws  for  his  special  government,  and 
left  him  groping  in  ignorance  of  these  important 
subjects  until  the  time  of  Moses,  and  yet  held  him 
to  rigid  responsibility  for  his  acts,  it  would  destroy 
our  belief  in  the  wisdom,  and  justice,  and  mercy, 
and  love  of  God.  (2)  #That,  had  God  created  man 
and  not  revealed  to  him  this  essential  knowledge,  he 
could  never  have  acquired  it  from  another  source  ; 


24 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


and  any  effort  upon  his  part  to  solve  these  questions 
for  himself,  would  merely  have  resulted  in  the  pro- 
duction of  innumerable  hypotheses,  all  more  or  less 
at  variance  with  truth,  and  consequently  incapable 
of  proof.  The  strength  of  our  position  upon  this 
subject  is  easily  demonstrated  by  investigating  the 
theories  of  the  men  of  modern  time,  who  deny  the 
existence  of  a Creator,  repudiate  the  Bible,  and  at- 
tribute the  existence  of  the  universe  to  natural 
causes;  and  who  attempt  to  explain  the  origin  of 
man,  his  relation  to  the  animals,  and  his  final  des- 
tiny. 

But  we  have  an  abundance  of  authentic  proof 
that  God  revealed  this  knowledge  to  Adam  in  the 
Creation,  as  shown  by  the  following  : 

The  Mosaic  Record  emphatically  states  that  God 
held  personal  intercourse  with  Adam  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden,  and  revealed  this  knowledge  to  him;  and 
that  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  Adam  and  Eve  were 
placed  under  a dual  system  of  laws ; the  one  defining 
their  relations  to  God,  and  their  relation  to  the  earth 
and  the  animals;  the  other  defining  their  mode  of 
religious  worship.  Bible  history  teaches  that  Adam 
transmitted  this  knowledge  to  his  decendants,  more 
or  less  of  whom  retained  it  in  its  purity  down  to  the 
time  of  the  Deluge ; and  that  after  the  Deluge  it  was 
transmitted  by  Noah  to  his  decendants. 

This  may  come  as  a surprise  to  those  who  have 
been  misled  by  the  theories*  of  atheism  to  believe 
that  man  is  a highly  developed  species  of  ape — the 
“human  species”  and  that  this  “human  species”  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


25 


ape  is  divisible  into  five  or  more  “ races  of  men  ” of 
which  the  White  is  the  highest  and  the  Negro  the 
lowest  race,  with  the  Browns,  Reds,  and  Yellows  as 
intermediate  races,  in  different  stages  of  develop- 
ment; and  that,  at  the  time  of  man’s  “differentiation” 
from  the  ape,  he  was  simply  an  ignorant,  brutal  sav- 
age, and  so  remained  for  tens  of  thousands  of  years, 
with  only  such  meager  ability  as  enabled  him  to 
fashion  out  of  flint,  a rudely  chipped  implement  of 
the  chase  with  which  to  slaughter  the  animals — his 
kinsmen — upon  which  he  fed,  and  from  which  he 
was  little  removed  in  point  of  intelligence;  and  that 
man  traces  his  line  of  decent  back  through  a long 
series  of  “ animal  ancestors  ” to  the  Monera — the  low- 
est form  of  animal — itself  the  result  of  “ spontaneous 
generation.” 

But  when  we  renounce  this  baseless,  absurd 
theory,  which  attributes  to  man  an  animal  ancestry, 
thus  degrading  him  to  the  level  of  the  brute,  and 
accept  in  their  entirety  the  elevating  teachings  of 
the  Mosaic  Record,  we  are  enabled  to  realize  that 
man  was  created  “the  son  of  God;”  that  he  was  de- 
signed for  a definite  purpose,  and  assigned  to  a spe- 
cific task  in  a fixed  place  of  abode ; and  that  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden  our  first  parents,  Adam  and  Eve, 
held  personal  intercourse  with  the  great  Architect  of 
the  universe,  who  revealed  to  them  the  great  events 
of  the  Creation,  together  with  a full  knowledge  of  all 
that  was  necessary  for  them  to  know  in  order  to  ac- 
complish the  great  task  for  which  they  were  design- 
ed and  to  which  God  assigned  them  in  the  Creation. 


26 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Men  inherit  from  their  ancestors  a greater  or 
less  amount  of  valuable  knowledge  which  they  add 
more  or  less  to,  and  teach  the  whole  to  their  child- 
ren, who,  in  their  turn,  transmit  it,  with  such  know- 
ledge as  they  may  have  otherwise  acquired,  to  their 
decendants.  Thus,  each  generation  inherits  from 
their  predecessors  a vast  amount  of  invaluable  know- 
ledge. But  who  taught  Adam?  He  was  the  first 
man.  No  long  line  of  progenitors  transmitted  to  him 
the  knowledge  they  had  acquired  from  observation 
and  experience.  He  was  created  absolutely  ignorant 
of  his  origin,  and  of  his  relations  to  God,  and  the  re- 
lations which  God  designed  him  to  maintain  toward 
the  earth,  and  the  rest  of  created  things.  We  in- 
struct our  children  in  such  knowledge  as  we  possess 
that  would  prove  beneficial  to  them,  and  thus  do  all 
in  our  power  to  equip  them  for  the  duties  of  life. 
Would  our  heavenly  father  be  less  mindful  of  the 
interest  of  his  earthly  children  ? Let  us  bear  in  mind 
that  Adam  was  “the  son  of  God;”  and  that  conse- 
quently his  pure-blooded  decendants  are  God’s  child- 
ren. To  believe  that  God  would  not  instruct  his 
children  in  all  that  concerns  their  welfare,  would 
compel  us  to  repudiate  the  teachings  of  scripture. 
God  revealed  to  Moses  the  truths  written  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch for  man’s  instruction.  Jesus  Christ  instructed 
His  desciples  in  the  duties  He  desired  them  to  per- 
form. The  Bible  as  a whole  is  composed  of  instruc- 
tion which  God  has  given  man,  from  time  to  time, 
for  his  enlightenment  and  guidance.  The  author 
of  each  book  of  the  Bible  was  a man  whom  God 


THE  TEMPTEK  OE  EVE. 


27 


instructed  upon  the  subjects  of  which  he  wrote. 
Hence,  the  various  books  of  the  Bible  mark  so  many 
periods  in  man’s  history  in  which  he  had  forgotten 
his  Creator  and  his  obligations  to  Him,  and  had 
wandered  so  far  in  forbidden  paths,  and  had  become 
so  ignorant  and  benighted,  as  to  make  it  impossible 
for  him,  unaided,  to  regain  his  lost  position.  They 
also  present  so  many  instances  in  which  God’s  pa- 
rental love  for  man  followed  him  out  into  the  dark- 
ness and  hopelessness  of  atheism  and  idolatry,  into 
which  his  follies  and  crimes  had  led  him,  and  en- 
lightened him,  extended  to  him  a helping  hand, 
and  guided  him  back  to  the  path  of  right  and  duty. 

When  we  find  that  God  dealt  thus  with  the  re- 
bellious descendants  of  Adam  in  their  wickedness 
and  depravity,  we  should  see  in  it  the  most  positive 
evidence  that  He  would  instruct  Adam  in  all  that 
was  essential  for  his  welfare,  when  his  ignorance  was 
only  equaled  by  his  innocence.  To  our  mind,  nothing 
could  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  God  did 
more  to  enlighten  the  demoralized,  degraded  de- 
scendants of  Adam,  whose  long  career  of  folly  and 
crime  had  reduced  them  to  the  most  pitiable  ignor- 
ance, than  He  did  for  Adam  in  the  innocence  and 
ignorance  in  which  He  created  him.  Hence,  if  the 
Bible  and  all  profane  history,  and  all  tradition  had 
been  destroyed  ages  ago,  and  we  were  creditably  in- 
formed of  the  existence  of  God,  the  Creator  of  the 
universe ; that  He  was  a being  of  infinite  wisdom, 
justice,  mercy,  and  love ; that  He  created  man  in  His 
own  image,  and  incorporated  with  man’s  physical  and 


28 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


mental  organisms  a part  of  His  own  substance,  thus 
rendering  him  immortal  and  establishing  between 
Himself  and  man  the  close  relationship  of  father  and 
son ; that  He  created  man  for  a definite  purpose,  and 
immediately  assigned  him  to  a gigantic  work  which 
required  the  highest  intelligence  to  accomplish,  rea- 
son would  assure  us  that  this  wise,  just,  merci- 
ful loving  God  revealed  to  man  a knowledge  of  all 
these  things ; and  acquainted  him  with  the  existence 
of  all  the  factors  which  he  should  employ  in  the  ac- 
complishment of  his  great  task,  and  the  manner  of 
utilizing  them.  But  upon  this  important  subject  we 
shall  not  be  content  to  rest  our  case  upon  mere  as- 
sumption ; and  in  the  following  chapters  we  shall 
show  by  Bible  history  that  God  did  reveal  to  Adam 
a vast  amount  of  invaluable  knowledge  relative  to 
the  successful  accomplishment  of  his  great  task,  of 
which  the  narrative  of  Creation  makes  no  mention. 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  this  invaluable  knowl- 
edge which  God  revealed  to  Adam  as  shown  by  the 
Mosaic  Record  and  the  earty  history  of  the  Adamic 
family,  was  not  designed  for  Adam  alone,  but  was 
intended  for  the  benefit  of  his  descendants  through- 
out the  ages  that  were  to  come.  No  good  reason 
could  be  advanced  why  God  should  desire  that  this 
great  mass  of  invaluable  knowledge  should  be  trans- 
mitted orally  from  generation  to  generation,  thus 
risking  its  being  corrupted  to  a greater  or  less  ex- 
tent, and  its  value  correspondingly  impaired.  On 
the  contrary,  we  can  see  every  reason  why  God 
should  prefer  that  this  knowledge  which  He  had 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


29 


revealed  to  Adam  for  his  benefit  and  that  of  his  des- 
cendants should  be  made  a matter  of  permanent 
record,  thus  assuring  its  transmission  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  in  its  purity.  And  a moment’s 
consideration  should  convince  us  that  this  could 
only  be  accomplished  by  a knowledge  of  letters ; that 
its  certain  transmission  in  its  purity  necessitated  its 
being  made  in  writing.  This  being  true,  it  follows 
that  at  no  period  of  his  history  has  man  stood  in 
greater  need  of  the  knowledge  of  letters  and  the  art 
of  writing  than  did  Adam  in  the  Creation;  and  we 
feel  assured  that  among  his  other  accomplishments, 
Adam  possessed  the  art  of  writing,  and  that  he  em- 
ployed it  in  transmitting  to  his  descendants  the 
knowledge  which  God  revealed  to  him  for  his  benefit 
and  theirs. 

But  though  no  fragment  of  this  written  record 
has  escaped  the  ravages  of  time,  and  descended  to 
us,  we  are  not  without  evidence  of  its  former  exist- 
ence. The  Hebrew  commentators  on  the  Book  of 
Genesis  say : “ Our  rabbins  assert  that  Adam,  our 

father  of  blessed  memory,  composed  a book  of  pre- 
cepts which  were  delivered  to  him  by  God  in  Para- 
dise.” (Smith's  Sacred  Annals) . The  value  of  the 
Mosaic  Record  is  not  due  to  the  fact  that  Moses 
wrote  it,  but  to  the  fact  that  God  revealed  to  him  the 
knowledge  which  it  contains ; so  it  was  with  Adam’s 
book ; its  value  did  not  consist  in  the  fact  that  Adam 
wrote  it,  but  that  God  “ delivered  to  him”  the  “ pre- 
cepts” of  which  it  was  composed;  though  Adam 
wrote  the  one,  and  Moses  wrote  the  other,  God  in- 


30 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


spired  their  utterances.  Hence,  they  were  each  in- 
spired volumes.  This  being  true,  it  follows  that  the 
most  devout  believer  in  the  Bible  of  to-day  does 
not  hold  it  in  greater  reverence  than  the  antedi- 
luvians and  the  descendants  of  Noah  for  centuries 
after  the  Deluge  held  Adam’s  book  of  precepts.  The 
knowledge  which  Adam’s  book  contained  was  our 
birthright ; but  unfortunately  for  us  and  them,  there 
came  a time  in  the  remote  past  when  our  ancestors 
began  to  esteem  it  lightly,  and  little  by  little  it  was 
lost,  until  to-day  only  a few  fragments  are  to  be 
found  upon  the  different  continents ; but  even  these 
fragments  that  have  survived  the  destruction  of  the 
written  record,  and  have  been  handed  down  tradi- 
tionally, have  become  so  corrupted  in  their  transit 
through  the  ages  as  to  be  of  no  practical  value, 
beyond  the  evidence  their  presence  presents  of  the 
former  existence  of  a written  volume  which  God  in- 
spired Adam  to  write. 

The  idea  that  our  most  ancient  progenitor  had 
a knowledge  of  letters,  and  the  art  of  writing,  may 
seem  surprising  to  many  who  have  been  misled  by 
the  theories  of  atheists  to  believe  that  man  descended 
from  the  ape ; and  that  the  earliest  men  were  speech- 
less and  so  remained  for  ages  before  developing  artic- 
ulate speech;  and  that  after  this  event  they  slowly 
developed  through  the  different  stages  of  savagism, 
barbarism,  and  semi-barbarism,  until  the}7  finally 
reached  such  a degree  of  civilization  as  enabled  them 
to  realize  their  need  of  letters  and  the  art  of  writing; 
and  that  they  reached  this  period  of  their  history  in 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


31 


the  time  of  the  Phoenicians,  a once  great  commer- 
cial and  maratime  people,  who  invented  the  alpha- 
bet. This  absurd  theory  of  the  Phoenician  origin  of 
the  alphabet  has  long  since  been  exploded ; but  with 
that  tenacity  with  which  men  cling  to  error,  it  is 
taught  to-day  in  quarters  where  we  should  least  ex- 
pect it.  As  has  been  shown,  reason  and  the  accep- 
tance of  the  teachings  of  scripture  leads  to  the 
belief  that  the  art  of  writing  is  very  nearly  as  old  as 
man ; and  the  most  ancient  traditions  sustain  it. 
Soudas,  the  Greek  lexicographer,  merely  voiced  a 
tradition  of  the  ancients  when  he  said,  “Adam  was 
the  author  of  arts  and  letters.”  Pliny  says,  “Letters 
were  always  in  use.”  Josephus  expresses  Jewish 
tradition  when  he  says,  “ The  births  and  deaths  of 
illustrious  men,  between  Adam  and  Noah,  were  noted 
down  at  the  time  with  great  accuracy.”  The  Egyp- 
tians said  that  their  God,  Anubis,  was  an  antedilu- 
vian who  “ wrote  annals  before  the  flood.”  The 
Chinese  have  traditions  that  their  ancestors,  prior  to 
history,  “taught  all  the  arts  of  life  and  wrote  books.” 
William  Mitford,  the  historian,  in  discussing  the 
origin  of  the  alphabet,  says : “ Nothing  appears  to  us 

so  probable  as  that  it  was  derived  from  the  antedilu- 
vian world.” 

When  we  examine  the  ancient  literature  of  the 
oldest  civilized  nations,  such  as  the  Scandinavians, 
Greeks,  Egyptians,  Hindoos,  Chinese,  Americans, 
etc.,  we  find  that  back  of  all  their  atheism,  and  idol- 
atry, lays  the  sublime  doctrine  of  monotheism.  This 
proves  that  those  peerless  old  architects  who  lived 


32 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


nearest  to  the  time  of  Noah,  and  who  developed 
those  splendid  civilizations,  the  remains  of  which 
adorn  every  continent  of  the  earth,  were  monothe- 
ists ; it  also  proves  that  their  descendants  yielded 
to  the  demoralizing,  degrading  influence  of  some 
seductive  crime,  and  forgot  God  and  his  “precepts,” 
renounced  monotheism  and  wandered  off  into  the 
darkness  of  atheism  and  idolatry.  One  would  nat- 
urally suppose  that  there  could  be  no  identity  of 
origin,  no  kinship,  not  even  the  remotest  relationship 
between  atheism,  which  denies  the  existence  of  God, 
and  idolatry  with  its  worship  of  many  gods;  but  in- 
vestigation of  their  origin  reveals  the  fact  that  they 
are  twin  sisters — the  offspring  of  one  crime. 

Thus  it  is  shown  that  Monotheism  is  not  only 
traceable  to  those  most  ancient  and  highly  civilized 
postdiluvians  who  lived  nearest  to  the  time  of  Noah, 
but  it  is  traceable  to  Adam,  the  first  man  — “the 
son  of  God.”  The  Bible  teaches  that  Adam  was  a 
monotheist;  that  in  His  intercourse  with  Adam  and 
Eve,  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  God  taught  them  the 
doctrine  of  monotheism,  together  with  many  other 
“ things  which  he  desired  should  be  known  to  their 
descendants  throughout  all  time ; that  Adam  trans- 
mitted it  to  his  descendants,  among  whom  was 
Noah.  We  have  shown  that  the  very  fact  that  the 
knowledge  which  God  revealed  to  Adam  was  designed 
for  his  descendants  throughout  the  ages  that  were 
to  come,  required  that  it  be  transmitted  in  writing; 
and  the  most  ancient  and  reliable  traditions  assert 
that  this  was  done.  Why  should  not  Adam  have 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


33 


been  the  inventor  of  letters  and  the  art  of  writ- 
ing ? Why  should  not  the  antediluvians  have  need- 
ed and  employed  the  art  of  writing  as  well  as  the 
postdiluvians  ? The  Bible  also  teaches  that  mo- 
notheism was  the  belief  of  Noah  and  his  family,  and 
that  they  taught  it  to  their  children ; and  if  they 
received  this  doctrine  from  their  ancestors  in  writing, 
they  transmitted  it  in  writing  to  their  descendants. 
All  known  facts  concerning  the  antediluvians  indi- 
cate that  they  were  a highly  cultivated  people.  This 
being  true,  the  inference  is  fair  that  Noah  preserved 
in  the  ark,  among  other  things,  a greater  or  less 
amount  of  valuable  literature,  some  sacred,  some 
profane;  at  the  head  of  which  stood  the  inspired 
book  written  by  Adam;  that  he  transmitted  this 
literature  to  his  descendants,  who  added  to  it,  as  we 
add  to  our  literature,  until  they  entered  upon  their 
downward  career  of  crime,  in  which  their  literature, 
sacred  and  profane,  was  finally  lost ; and  their 
descendants  plunged  into  the  greatest  ignorance  and 
superstition.  The  above  are  our  impressions  of  the 
learning  and  culture  of  Adam  and  his  descendants 
down  to  the  time  of  Moses,  when  viewed  in  the 
lights  of  scripture  and  tradition. 

When  we  stand  at  our  day  and  look  backward 
up  the  stream  of  time,  we  are  enabled  with  the  aids 
of  scripture,  profane  history  and  tradition  to  see  that 
beyond  the  ages  of  atheism  and  idolatry,  the  various 
continents  of  the  earth  were  populated  by  a highly 
cultivated  and  enlightened  people  who  were  mon- 
otheists. Thus  it  is  shown  that,  whether  we  trace 


34 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  history  of  man  from  the  Creation  to  a period 
subsequent  to  the  Deluge,  or  whether  we  trace  his 
history  back  from  our  day  to  those  great  civilized 
nations  who  lived  nearest  to  the  time  of  the  Deluge, 
the  result  is  the  same ; we  find  that  monotheism  is 
the  most  ancient  belief  of  mankind.  But  strange  to 
say,  the  existence  of  monotheism  among  these  ancient 
civilized  nations  has  been  seized  upon  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  Bible  as  a weapon  with  which  to  assail  it 
at  its  most  vital  point ; they  attempt  to  use  this  fact 
as  evidence  that  God  never  inspired  Moses  to  write 
the  Pentateuch ; but  that  it  is  simply  a compilation 
of  old  legends  and  traditions  which  he  or  others  had 
access  to ; and  stranger  still  is  the  fact  that  we  find 
many  professed  Christians  who  accept  this  demoral- 
izing theory.  But  a moment’s  reflection  should  con- 
vince us  that  if  Christianity  as  founded  by  Jesus 
Christ  has  any  basis  in  fact,  its  ultimate  basis  is  the 
Mosaic  Record,  and  if  the  Mosaic  Record  and  the 
early  history  of  man  as  we  find  it  in  the  Pentateuch, 
is  merely  a compilation  of  old  legends  and  traditions 
that  may  be  true  or  false,  or  may  be  part  true  and 
part  false,  then  Christianity  rests  upon  a foundation 
so  frail  and  unreliable  that,  so  far  from  commanding 
our  respect,  merely  provokes  contempt. 

By  comparing  the  Mosaic  Record  with  the  cosmo- 
gonies of  the  ancients  in  the  corrupted  condition  in 
which  they  have  descended  to  us,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  monotheism  is  the  principal  characteristic 
which  they  have  in  common.  Hence,  no  process  of 
reasoning  could  be  so  illogical  than  that  which  leads 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


35 


the  skeptic  to  decide  that  the  Mosaic  Record  was  de- 
rived from  the  ancients.  But  neither  the  advocates 
of  the  Bible  or  its  opponents  should  be  content  to 
rest  their  case  here ; neither  should  be  satisfied  to 
confine  their  investigations  to  ascertaining  the  ori- 
gin of  the  Bible ; but  each  should  seek  a solution  of 
the  question.  From  what  source  did  these  most 
highly  civilized  and  enlightened  peoples  of  antiquity 
of  whom  profane  history  and  tradition  gives  us  any 
knowledge  obtain  their  belief  in  monotheism  ? The 
atheist  admits  that  monotheism  is  the  most  exalted 
religious  belief ; and  that  the  earliest  men  in  their 
ignorance  and  inexperience  could  never  have  con- 
ceived it ; but  that  it  was  only  possible  to  attain  to  it 
by  a process  of  development  from  other  beliefs,  ex- 
tending through  long  periods  of  time.  But  no  ves- 
tige of  such  development  exists.  Monotheism,  the 
belief  in  one  God  only — the  Creator  of  the  universe 
— He  who  rewards  the  good  and  punishes  the  wicked 
— looms  up  in  the  remote  past,  in  all  its  grandeur 
and  sublimity,  as  the  earliest  and  universal  belief  of 
the  globe.  This  being  true  it  follows  that  atheism 
can  throw  no  light  on  the  origin  of  monotheism; 
on  the  contrary,  the  antiquity  and  universality  of  this 
sublime  conception,  utterly  disproves  the  theories  of 
atheists  as  to  the  origin  of  religious  beliefs.  Hence, 
we  must  seek  elsewhere  for  a solution  of  the  question 
as  to  where  the  great  nations  of  antiquity  obtained 
their  belief  in  monotheism ; and  the  Bible,  profane 
history,  and  the  most  ancient  traditions  furnish  the 
only  explanation. 


36 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


As  has  been  shown,  the  Bible  teaches  that  man 
was  created  “ in  the  image  of  God that  he  was  de- 
signed for  a special  purpose,  and  assigned  to  a speci- 
fic task ; that  Adam  and  Eve  were  given  a fixed  place 
of  abode  in  the  Garden  of  Eden ; that  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden  God  held  personal  intercourse  with  Adam  and 
Eve,  our  first  parents,  and  implanted  in  their  minds 
the  doctrine  of  monotheism ; that  He  revealed  to  them 
the  great  events  of  the  Creation,  together  with  a vast 
amount  of  invaluable  knowledge  for  their  enlighten- 
ment and  guidance,  and  that  of  their  descendants 
throughout  the  ages  that  were  to  come.  The  most 
ancient  and  reliable  traditions  teach  us  that  Adam 
was  the  author  of  arts  and  letters ; and  that  he  trans- 
mitted in  writing  to  his  descendants  the  “ precepts  ” 
which  God  delivered  to  him  in  Eden.  Profane  his- 
tory has  preserved  and  handed  these  traditions  down 
to  us.  The  Bible  also  teaches  that  at  an  earty  period 
in  their  history  the  descendants  of  Adam  disregarded 
the  “ precepts  ” of  God  ; violated  His  laws ; and  many 
descended  to  the  perpetration  of  crimes  so  beastly  as 
-to  result  in  corrupting  the  flesh  of  the  earth,  thus  as- 
’ sailing  God’s  Plan  of  Creation  at  its  most  vital  point. 
The  rapid  increase  of  this  crime  for  many  centuries 
threatened  the  utter  destruction  of  God’s  Plan  of 
Creation,  and  made  it  necessary  for  Him,  in  order  to 
preserve  it,  to  send  upon  the  earth  a universal  del- 
uge, and  destroy  this  corrupted  flesh  and  those  who 
were  instrumental  in  corrupting  it,  together  with  the 
animals  that  were  not  saved  with  Noah  and  his  fami- 
ly in  the  ark. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


37 


The  Bible  teaches  that  Noah  and  his  family  were 
monotheists ; and  tradition  indicates  that  they  re- 
ceived the  doctrine  of  monotheism  from  their  ances- 
tors in  writing,  and  that  they  transmitted  it  in  writ- 
ing to  their  descendants.  After  the  Deluge  God 
made  a covenant  with  Noah  and  his  family  in  which 
He  promised  that  He  would  not  again  destroy  every 
thing  living  as  He  had  done.  God  also  gave  Noah  and 
his  family  the  commands  given  to  Adam  in  the  Cre- 
ation : “Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the 
earth ; ” at  the  same  time  He  delivered  into  their 
hands  the  fish  of  the  sea,  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  the 
land  animals.  All  the  facts  indicate  that  for  a long 
period  after  the  Deluge  the  descendants  of  Noah 
lived  in  obedience  to  the  laws  of  God,  and  developed 
upon  the  various  continents,  those  superb  civiliza- 
tions, the  remains  of  which,  even  in  their  ruins,  at- 
test the  skill,  culture,  and  refinement  of  their 
architects.  But  in  the  course  of  time  the  descen- 
dants of  Noah,  like  the  antediluvians,  disregarded 
the  “precepts”  of  God;  violated  His  laws,  and  aban- 
doned themselves  to  the  same  loathsome  crime  that 
brought  destruction  upon  the  antediluvian  world; 
God  then  showered  His  curses  upon  them  in  the 
form  of  war,  famine,  and  pestilence.  Thus  whole 
nations  were  destroyed  from  off  the  earth  ; their  civi- 
lizations laid  in  ruins,  and  their  once  prosperous 
homes  were  transformed  into  the  abodes  of  barbari- 
ans and  savages  their  crimes  had  produced. 

After  entering  upon  their  career  of  crime,  the 
decendants  of  Noah  gradually  renounced  monothe- 


38 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EVE. 


ism,  and  decended  to  atheism  and  idolatry;  in  their 
long,  destructive  wars,  and  the  many  discouraging 
vicissitudes  through  which  they  passed  for  centuries, 
their  literature,  sacred  and  profane  was  lost,  and 
monotheism  and  the  history  of  their  remote  ances- 
tors survived  only  in  tradition ; and  in  the  course  of 
time,  even  these  traditions  became  so  confused  with 
errors  and  superstitions  as  to  render  them  of  no 
practical  value.  Persisting  in  their  wicked,  demor- 
alizing course,  they  finally  reached  such  depths  of 
ignorance  and  depravity  as  to  render  it  impossible 
for  them  unaided  to  regain  their  lost  knowledge  and 
position.  Then  God  in  His  wisdom,  His  justice,  His 
mercy,  and  in  His  wondrous  love  for  man,  decided 
to  make  a second  revelation  to  man,  of  the  great 
events  of  the  Creation  in  the  order  of  their  occur- 
rence; and  also  to  reveal  to  man  a knowledge  of  his 
kinship  with  God;  his  immortality;  the  design  of 
God  in  creating  him,  and  the  duties  to  which  he  was 
assigned  in  the  Creation;  and  the  relations  which 
God  desired  him  to  maintain  toward  the  animals,  to- 
gether with  the  early  history  of  man  down  to  the 
Israelitish  occupancy  of  Canaan  ;*and  He  selected 
Moses,  and  acquainted  him  with  a knowledge  of 
these  great  events,  and  instructed  him  to  write  them 
as  we  have  them  in  the  Pentateuch.  This  explains 
why  our  Bible,  in  some  of  its  features,  bears  more  or 
less  resemblance  to  many  of  the  cosmogonies  of  the 
ancients. 

In  order  to  form  a correct  estimate  of  the  value 
of  the  Bible,  we  should  first  seek  to  ascertain  whether 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


39 


it  is,  as  it  purports  to  be,  of  Divine  origin,  or  whether 
it  is  merely  a human  production.  And  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  case  demands  that  we  first  investigate 
the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  of  which  the  narrative 
of  Creation  is  an  important  part.  In  this  investiga- 
tion let  us  keep  in  view  the  following  important 
truths:  (1)  That  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  more 

than  thirty-five  centuries  before  the  birth  of  modern 
science.  (2)  That  at  the  time  it  was  written,  the 
world  was  under  the  sway  of  the  old  cosmogonies  of 
Egypt,  Babylon,  Assyria,  India,  China,  America,  etc., 
all  of  which  were  so  loaded  with  errors  and  super- 
stitions as  to  provoke  the  contempt  and  ridicule  of 
the  modern  scientists.  (3)  That  Moses,  though  an 
Israelite,  was  reared  by  a princess  of  Egypt,  and  was 
educated  as  an  Egyptian. 

The  Egyptians  taught  that  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  originated  out  of  a kind  of  pulp,  and  that  man 
was  generated  from  the  slime  of  the  river  Nile. 
There  were  other  Egyptian  philosophers  who  taught 
that  the  world  was  hatched  from  a winged  egg.  The 
Bible  tells  us  that  “ Moses  was  learned  in  all  the  wis- 
dom of  the  Egyptians;”  yet  his  cosmogony  bears  no 
resemblance  to  theirs.  What  power  enabled  Moses 
to  divest  his  mind  of  the  atheism  and  idolatry  which 
characterized  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  repudiate 
the’old  cosmogonies  with  which  he  was  so  familiar, 
and  write  a cosmogony  of  the  universe  that  is  fault- 
less in  the  light  of  modern  science?  If  Moses  and 
the  other  authors  of  the  Bible  were  not  enlightened 
and  guided  by  some  higher  power,  how  is  it  that 


40 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


their  writings  are  absolutely  free  from  the  errors  and 
superstitions  which  characterize  the  old  philosophers 
who  preceded,  and  those  who  followed  them  or  were 
contemporary  with  them?  It  should  be  unnecessary 
to  remind  our  readers  that  the  ancient  theories 
which  thrust  God  aside,  and  attributed  the  origin  of 
the  universe  to  other  sources,  were  the  expression 
of  the  purest  atheism.  But  modern  science  with  its 
telescopes,  microscopes,  spectroscopes,  and  other  im- 
plements and  appliances,  has  exposed  their  fallacies, 
and  the  intelligence  of  the  world  has  thrown  them 
aside  as  worthless.  The  Bible,  with  its  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  the  universe  is  more  ancient  than 
many  of  these  old  cosmogonies,  and  contemporane- 
ous with  all  of  them;  it  was  subjected  to  the  same 
severe  tests  which  modern  science  applied  to  them, 
and  to  which  they  succumbed.  But  after  the  most 
prolonged,  rigid  investigation,  often  conducted  with 
evident  unfairness,  where  does  the  Bible  stand  to- 
day? Peerless  in  the  realm  of  literature — peculiar, 
in  that  it  is  the  only  book  without  a flaw — the  Bible 
bears  upon  its  every  page  the  evidences  of  its  divine 
origin,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  is  the  only  book 
that  will  stand  at  every  point,  the  crucial  test  of 
modern  science. 


CHAPTER  II. 


The  Beginning  and  the  First  Day. 

“ In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth. 

“And  the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void; 
and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep.  And 
the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters.”  {Gen.  i,  1-2.) 

The  sublimity  of  the  opening  declaration  of  the 
Mosaic  Record  that,  “ in  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth,”  is  unparalleled  in  the 
world’s  literature.  Its  description  of  infinite  intel- 
ligence combined  with  infinite  power  in  a single  per- 
sonage is  such  as  only  the  mind  of  Deity  could  have 
conceived,  and  thus,  at  once,  goes  far  to  prove  the 
existence  of  God  and  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible. 

The  first  verse  of  Genesis  teaches  that  there  is 
a God ; a personal  God ; a Creator  separate  knd  dis- 
tinct from  His  creation.  “ The  central  idea  is  crea- 
tion.” But  in  order  to  fully  understand  the  mean- 
ing of  this  scriptural  teaching  we  must  first  ascertain 
what  constitutes  a creation  as  described  in  the  Mosaic 
Record.  This  evidently  describes  the  bringing  into 
existence  of  some  new  element,  and  its  introduction 
into  the  material  universe. 

In  discussing  this  question,  Professor  Guyot 
says : “ The  Hebrew  word  is  bard , translated  by 

41 


42 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EVE. 


create.  It  has  been  doubted  whether  the  word  meant 
a creation,  in  the  sense  that  the  world  was  not  de- 
rived from  any  pre-existing  material,  nor  from 
the  substance  of  God  Himself ; but  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  here  used  does  not  seem  to  justify  such 
a doubt.  For  whatever  be  the  use  of  the  word  bard 
in  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  it  is  employed  in  this 
chapter  in  a discriminating  way,  which  is  very  re- 
markable, and  cannot  but  be  intentional.  It  occurs 
only  on  three  occasions,  the  first  creation  of  matter 
in  the  first  verse,  the  first  introduction  of  life  on  the 
fifth  day,  and  the  creation  of  man  on  the  sixth  day. 
Elsewhere,  when  only  transformations  are  meant,  as 
on  the  second  and  fourth  days,  or  a continuation  of 
the  same  kind  of  creation,  as  in  the  land  animals  of 
the  fifth  day,  the  word  asdh  (make)  is  used.  Again, 
it  is  a significant  fact  that  in  the  whole  Bible  where 
the  simple  form  of  bard  is  used  it  is  always  with 
reference  to  a work  made  by  God,  but  never  by 
man.”  ( Creation , pp.  29,  30,  31.) 

This  enables  us  to  realize  the  broad  distinction 
which  the  inspired  author  draws  between  creation 
and  formation.  A creation  is  the  bringing  into  ex- 
istence and  introduction  into  the  material  universe 
of  some  new  element.  A formation  is  something 
made  out  of  some  pre-existing  material — the  result 
of  a mere  change  wrought  in  the  form  of  the  orig- 
inal element. 

The  Mosaic  Record  teaches  that  there  are  three 
— and  only  three — creations.  The  first  creation  is 
described  in  connection  with  the  heaven  and  the 
earth,  “in  the  beginning.”  The  second  creation  is 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


43 


described  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of 
animal  life  on  the  “ fifth  day.”  The  third  creation 
is  described  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of 
man  on  the  “ sixth  day.” 

“In  the  beginning”  the  first  step  in  creation 
was  the  bringing  into  existence,  and  the  introduc- 
tion into  what  was  then  empty  space,  the  material 
out  of  which  all  bodies  are  formed.  This  creation  is 
described  as  that  of  “the  heaven  and  the  earth.” 
Science  applies  the  term  matter  to  the  lowest  element 
of  which  it  has  any  knowledge;  and  teaches  that 
matter  is  the  material  out  of  which  all  bodies  are 
formed.  Science  teaches  that  matter  exists  in  the 
material  universe  in  just  three  forms,  the  solid, 
liquid  and  gaseous ; and  inasmuch  as  all  bodies, 
celestial  and  terrestrial,  are  resolvable  into  matter 
in  its  gaseous  state,  science  very  properly  decides 
that  matter  in  its  gaseous  state  was  the  primitive 
condition  of  all  bodies. 

In  discussing  this  question,  Professor  Guyot 
says : “ Minerals,  plants,  animals — all  bodies  of 

nature — are  compound  results  of  processes  which 
speak  of  a previous  condition.  By  decomposing 
them,  and  undoing  what  has  been  done  before,  we 
finally  arrive  at  the  simple  chemical  elements  which 
are  the  substratum  of  all  bodies.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  three  forms  of  matter — solid,  liquid  and 
gaseous.  The  least  defined— the  one  in  which  the 
atoms  are  the  most  free — is  the  gaseous.  All  bodies 
in  nature  can  be  reduced  to  this,  the  simplest  form 
of  matter.”  (Ibid,  pp.  39,  40.) 

Dr.  Patterson  says : “ Homogenous,  gaseous 


44 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


matter  has  been  separated,  investigated  and  found 
to  have  the  Creator’s  mark.  Science  has  penetrated 
even  into  the  constitution  of  matter,  and  from  the 
constitution  of  its  smallest  parts,  the  molecules  of 
which  each  element  is  composed,  it  has  demon- 
strated the  necessity  for,  and  the  proof  of,  the  exist- 
ence of  a maker.  The  ultimate  molecules  of  matter 
are  made,  manufactured,  and  bear  the  manufactur- 
er’s brand  indelibly  stamped  upon  each  one  of  them. 
Allow  me  to  cite  the  words  of  one  whose  name  will 
insure  respect  from  all  scientists — Prof.  James  Clerk 
Maxwell,  in  his  lecture  before  the  British  Associa- 
tion as  given  in  the  Scientific  American,  and  cited  in 
the  Interior  Sept.  4,  1873 : 

“ 1 Professor  Clerk  Maxwell  lately  delivered  an 
interesting  lecture  before  the  British  Association, 
upon  molecules,  by  which  is  meant  the  subdivision 
of  matter  into  the  greatest  possible  number  of  por- 
tions, similar  to  each  other.  Thus,  if  a number  of 
molecules  of  water  are  combined,  they  form  a mass 
of  water.  Molecules  of  some  compound  substances 
may  be  subdivided  into  their  component  substances. 
Thus  the  molecule  of  water  separates  into  two  mole- 
cules of  hydrogen  and  one  of  oxygen. 

“ ‘ Professor  Maxwell  has  calculated  the  size  and 
weight  of  hydrogen  molecules,  and  finds  that  about 
two  millions  of  them,  placed  side  by  side  in  a row 
would  occupy  a length  of  about  one  twenty-fifth  of 
an  inch,  and  that  a package  of  them  containing  a 
million  million  million  million  of  them  would  weigh 
sixty-two  grains,  or  not  quite  one-eighth  of  an 
ounce. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


45 


“ ‘ Each  molecule  throughout  the  universe,  bears 
impressed  upon  it  the  stamp  of  a metric  system  as 
distinctly  as  does  the  meter  of  the  archives  at  Paris, 
or  the  double  royal  cubit  of  the  Temple  of  Karnac. 

“ 1 No  theory  of  evolution  can  be  formed  to  ac- 
count for  the  similarity  of  molecules,  for  evolution 
necessarily  implies  continuous  change,  and  the  mole- 
cule is  incapable  of  growth  or  decay,  of  generation 
or  destruction.  None  of  the  processes  of  nature, 
since  the  time  when  nature  began,  have  produced 
the  slightest  difference  in  the  properties  of  any  mole- 
cule. We  are,  therefore,  unable  to  ascribe  either  the 
existence  of  the  molecules  or  the  identity  of  their 
properties  to  the  operation  of  any  of  the  causes  which 
we  call  natural.  On  the  other  hand,  the  exact 
equality  of  each  molecule  to  all  others  of  the  same 
kind  gives  it,  as  Sir  John  Herschel  has  well  said,  the 
essential  character  of  a manufactured  article,  and 
precludes  the  idea  of  its  being  eternal  and  self- 
existent. 

“ ‘ Thus  we  have  been  led,  by  a strictly  scientific 
path,  very  near  to  the  point  at  which  science  must 
stop.  Not  that  science  is  debarred  from  studying 
the  internal  mechanism  of  a molecule  which  she  can- 
not take  to  pieces,  any  more  than  from  investigating 
an  organism  which  she  cannot  put  together,  but  in 
tracing  back  the  history  of  matter,  science  is  arrested 
when  she  assures  herself,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the 
molecule  has  been  made,  and  on  the  other,  that  it 
has  not  been  made  by  any  of  the  processes  we  call 
natural. 

“ ‘Science  is  incompetent  to  reason  upon  the  crea- 


46 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


tion  of  matter  itself  out  of  nothing.  We  have 
reached  the  utmost  limit  of  our  thinking  faculties 
when  we  have  admitted  that  because  matter  cannot 
be  eternal  and  seft-existent,  it  must  have  been  cre- 
ated. It  is  only  when  we  contemplate,  not  matter  in 
itself,  but  the  form  in  which  it  actually  exists,  that 
our  mind  finds  something  on  which  it  can  lay  hold. 
That  matter,  as  such,  should  have  certain  funda- 
mental properties,  that  it  should  exist  in  space  and 
be  capable  of  motion,  that  its  motion  should  be 
persistent,  and  so  on,  are  truths  which  may,  for 
anything  we  know,  be  of  the  kind  which  metaphy- 
sicians call  necessary.  We  may  use  our  knowledge 
of  such  truths  for  purposes  of  deduction,  but  we 
have  no  data  for  speculating  as  to  their  origin.  But 
that  there  should  be  exactly  so  much  matter  and  no 
more  in  every  molecule  of  hydrogen,  is  a fact  of  a 
very  different  order.  We  have  here  a particular 
distribution  of  matter,  a collocation,  to  use  the  ex- 
pression of  Dr.  Chalmers,  of  things  which  we  have 
no  difficulty  in  imagining  to  have  been  arranged 
otherwise.  The  form  and  dimensions  of  the  orbits 
of  the  planets,  for  instance,  are  not  determined  by 
any  law  of  nature,  but  depend  upon  a particular 
collocation  of  matter.  The  same  is  the  case  with 
respect  to  the  size  of  the  earth,  from  which  the 
standard  of  what  is  called  the  metrical  system  has 
been  derived.  But  these  astronomical  and  terrestrial 
magnitudes  are  far  inferior  in  scientific  importance 
to  that  most  fundamental  of  all  standards  which 
forms  the  base  of  the  molecular  system.  Natural 
causes,  as  we  know,  are  at  work,  which  tend  to 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


47 


modify,  if  they  do  not  at  length  destroy,  all  the 
arrangements  and  dimensions  of  the  earth  and  the 
whole  solar  system.  »But  though  in  the  course  of 
ages  catastrophies  have  occurred,  and  may  yet  occur 
in  the  heavens,  though  ancient  systems  may  be  dis- 
solved and  new  systems  evolved  out  of  their  ruins, 
the  molecules  out  of  which  these  systems  are  built 
— the  foundation  stones  of  the  material  universe — 
remain  unbroken  and  unworn.  They  continue  this 
day  as  they  were  created,  perfect  in  number,  and 
measure,  and  weight,  and  from  the  ineffaceable  char- 
acters impressed  on  them  we  may  learn  that  those 
aspirations  after  accuracy  in  measurement,  truth  in 
statement,  and  justice  in  action,  which  we  reckon 
among  our  noblest  attributes  as  men,  are  ours  be- 
cause they  are  essentially  constituents  of  the  image 
of  Him  who  in  the  beginning  created,  not  only  the 
heaven  and  the  earth,  but  the  materials  of  which 
heaven  and  earth  consist.’  ” ( Errors  of  Evolution , 

pp.  73,  74,  75,  76.) 

Thus  science  teaches  that  matter,  the  material 
of  which  all  bodies  are  formed,  is  not  eternal  and 
self-existent.  But  that  its  “ ultimate  molecules  are 
made,”  and  “ not  by  any  process  that  we  call  nat- 
ural ; ” that  they  present  “ the  character  of  a manu- 
factured article  ; ” and  “ bear  the  manufacturer’s 
brand  indelibly  stamped  upon  each  one  of  them.” 
The  teaching  of  science  that  the  molecules  of  matter 
of  which  “ the  heaven  and  the  earth  ” are  composed 
are  not  eternal  and  self-existent,  proves  that  they 
had  a beginning ; that  they  were  created,  and  thus 
goes  far  to  sustain  the  teachings  of  scripture  that  its 


48 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


creator  is  God.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  realize  that 
the  creation  of  matter , the  basis  of  all  formation  in 
the  material  universe,  consisted  in  God’s  bringing 
into  existence  the  molecules  of  matter. 

Additional  proof  that  the  creation  which  God 
created  “in  the  beginning,”  and  which  is  described 
as  that  of  “ the  heaven  and  the  earth,”  was  the 
bringing  into  existence  of  matter,  is  shown  by  the 
following : 

1.  The  formation  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth, 
as  they  now  exist  began  on  the  “first  day”  of  the 
cosmogonic  week,  a period  distinct  from  and  long 
subsequent  to  “ the  beginning.” 

2.  The  language  of  the  second  verse  of  Genesis 
gives  an  exact  description  of  matter  in  its  primordial, 
or  gaseous  state.  In  discussing  this  subject  Professor 
Guyot  says : “ The  matter  just  created  was  gaseous ; it 
was  without  form,  for  the  property  of  gas  is  to  expand 
indefinitely.  It  was  void,  or  empty,  because  appar- 
ently homogenous  and  invisible.  It  was  dark,  be- 
cause as  yet  inactive,  light  being  the  result  of  the 
action  of  physical  and  chemical  forces  not  yet  awak- 
ened. It  was  a deep,  for  its  expansion  in  space, 
though  indefinite,  was  not  infinite,  and  it  had  dimen- 
sions. And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face 
(outside  and  not  inside,  as  the  pantheist  would  have 
it)  of  that  vast,  inert,  gaseous  mass,  read}7  to  impart 
to  it  motion,  and  to  direct  all  its  subsequent  activity, 
according  to  a plan  gradually  revealed  by  the  works 
of  the  great  cosmic  days.”  (Ibid,  p.  38.) 

Thus  science  clearly  proves  that  the  Creation 
which  God  created  “ in  the  beginning,”  which  is  de- 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


49 


scribed  as  that  of  “the  heaven  and  the  earth,”  was 
matter,  the  material  out  of  which  “the  heaven  and 
the  earth  ” were  afterwards  formed. 

In  absolute  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  sci- 
ence, atheism  teaches  that  “ matter  is  eternal  and 
imperishable.”  (See  HaeckeVs  History  of  Creation , 
Vol.  I,  p.  8.) 

3.  The  first  verse  of  Genesis,  in  harmony  with 
science,  teaches  that  matter,  the  material  out  of 
which  “the  heaven  and  the  earth”  was  formed, is  not 
eternal,  but  that  it  had  a beginning. 

But  when  was  the  “beginning”?  Evidently  the 
“beginning,”  as  described  in  the  first  verse  of  Gene- 
sis, marks  a period  distinct  from  the  “ first  day,”  as 
the  “first  day”  marks  a period  distinct  from  the 
“second  day.”  If  the  “beginning”  and  the  “first 
day”  were  one  period, the  two  terms  would  not  have 
been  employed  to  describe  it ; but  such  is  not  the  case ; 
the  “beginning”  and  the  “first  day”  mark  different 
epochs  in  the  history  of  matter.  Hence,  the  two 
terms,  the  “beginning”  and  the  “first  day,”  are  em- 
ployed to  describe  them.  Further  evidence  that  the 
“beginning,”  in  which  matter  was  created,  is  a period 
distinct  from  the  “first  day,”  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  second  verse  of  Genesis  gives  a description 
of  gaseous  matter  that  is  “dark,  because  inactive,” 
and  absolutely  still;  while  the  “first  day,”  as  we 
shall  hereafter  show,  begins  with  the  movement  of 
matter,  the  initial  step  in  the  formation  of  “ the 
heaven  and  the  earth.”  Though  we  were  long  ago 
impressed  with  the  fact  that  the  “beginning”  and 
the  “first  day,”  described  in  Genesis,  marked  differ- 


50 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


ent  epochs  in  the  history  of  the  universe,  we  are 
pleased  to  find  that  our  views  are  entertained  by  so 
high  an  authority  as  Chancellor  Dawson,  who  says : 
“The  material  universe  was  brought  into  existence 
in  the  ‘beginning’  — a term  evidently  indefinite  as 
regards  any  known  epoch,  and  implying  merely  pri- 
ority to  all  other  recorded  events.  It  cannot  be  the 
first  day,  for  there  is  no'  expressed  connection,  and 
the  work  of  the  first  day  is  distinct  from  that  of  the 
beginning.  It  cannot  be  a general  term  for  the  whole 
six  days,  since  these  are  separated  from  it  by  that 
chaotic  or  formless  state  to  which  we  are  next  intro- 
duced. The  beginning,  therefore,  is  the  threshold 
of  creation — the  line  that  separates  the  old  ten- 
antless condition  of  space  from  the  world-crowded 
galaxies  of  the  existing  universe.  The  only  other  in- 
formation respecting  it  that  we  have  in  scripture  is  in 
that  fine  descriptive  poem  in  Proverbs  viii,  in  which 
the  wisdom  of  God  personified — who  may  be  held  to 
represent  the  Almighty  Word,  or  Logos,  introduced 
in  the  formula  ‘ God  said,’  and  afterward  referred  to 
in  scripture  as  the  manifested  or  conditioned  Deity, 
the  mediator  between  man  and  the  otherwise  inac- 
cessible Divinity,  the  agent  in  the  work  of  creation, 
as  well  as  in  that  of  redemption — narrates  the  origin 
of  all  created  things : 

“ ‘ Jehovah  possessed*  me,  the  beginning  of  his  way, 
Before  his  work  of  old. 

I was  set  up  from  everlasting, 

From  the  beginning,  before  the  earth  was; 

When  there  were  no  deeps  I was  brought  forth, 
When  there  were  no  fountains  abounding  in  water.’” 

“ * Not  created,  as  some  read.  The  verb  is  Kana,  not  bari.’" 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


51 


“The  beginning  here  precedes  the  creation  of 
the  earth,  as  well  as  the  deep  which  encompassed  its 
surface  in  its  earliest  condition.  The  beginning  in 
this  point  of  view,  stretches  back  frojmjthe  origin  of 
the  world  into  the  depths  of  eternity.  It  is  to  us 
emphatically  the  beginning,  because  it  witnessed  the 
birth  of  our  material  system ; but  to  the  eternal 
Jehovah  it  was  but  the  beginning  of  a great  series 
of  His  operations,  and  we  have  no  information  of  its 
absolute  duration.”  ( The  Origin  of  the  World,  pp. 
95,96). 

We  feel  assured  that  careful  investigation  will 
reveal  the  strength  of  our  position  that,  between  the 
“ beginning,”  and  the  “ first  day  ” of  the  cosmogonic 
week,  “ there  is  no  expressed  connection  ; ” and  that 
the  work  of  the  “ first  day,”  is  distinct  from  that 
of  the  “ beginning.”  The  “ beginning,”  therefore, 
must  be  regarded  as  the  period  when  God  brought 
to  an  end  “ the  old  tenantless  condition  of  space  ” 
by  bringing  into  existence,  and  introducing  into  it, 
the  molecules  of  matter.  Hence,  the  “beginning” 
precedes  the  birth  of  time,  which  occurred  on  the 
“first  day”  of  the  cosmogonic  week.  Between  the 
“ beginning  ” and  the  “ first  day,”  there  was  an  in- 
terval ; but  in  our  attempt  to  ascertain  the  length  of 
this  interval,  science,  which  deals  alone  with  second 
causes,  is  powerless  to  aid  us,  and  Divine  revelation 
alone  can  throw  any  light ; reason  fails  to  grasp  this 
starting  point  in  creation,  and  even  the  imagination 
sees  the  “ beginning  ” recede  from  view  as  it  fades 
away  into  the  unfathomable  depths  of  eternity. 

Thus,  the  book  of  Genesis  teaches  that  matter 


52 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


is  not  eternal  and  self-existent,  but  that  it  had  a be- 
ginning. This  being  true,  we  should  not  be  sur- 
prised to  find  that  the  book  of  Revelation  plainly 
teaches  that  the  heaven  and  the  earth  which  God 
formed  out  of  matter  will  not  be  eternal,  but  will 
have  an  ending. 

In  the  book  of  Revelation,  John  gives  an  ac- 
count of  a series  of  events  which  were  revealed  to 
him ; but  which  were  evidently  not  revealed  to  him 
in  the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

In  his  first  vision  he  proceeds  to  describe  an 
event  which  he  says  “ must  shortly  come  to  pass.” 
(Rev.  i,  1).  This  was  evidently  the  final  destruc- 
tion of  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  as  shown  by  the 
following : 

“ And  I beheld  when  he  had  opened  the  sixth 
seal,  and,  lo,  there  was  a great  earthquake ; and  the 
sun  became  black  as  sackcloth  of  hair,  and  the  moon 
became  as  blood;  and  the  stars  of  heaven  fell  unto 
the  earth,  even  as  a fig  tree  casteth  her  untimely 
figs,  when  she  is  shaken  of  a mighty  wind.  And  the 
heaven  departed  as  a scroll  when  it  is  rolled  to- 
gether ; and  every  mountain  and  island  were  moved 
out  of  their  places.  And  the  kings  of  the  earth, 
and  the  great  men,  and  the  rich  men,  and  the  chief 
captains,  and  the  mighty  men,  and  every  bondman, 
and  every  free  man,  hid  themselves  in  the  dens  and 
in  the  rocks  of  the  mountains ; and  said  to  the 
mountains  and  rocks,  Fall  on  us,  and  hide  us  from 
the  face  of  Him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  from 
the  wrath  of  the  Lamb;  For  the  great  day  of  His 
wrath  is  come ; and  who  shall  be  able  to  stand  ? ” 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


53 


{Rev.  vi,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  17).  “And  I saw  an- 
other mighty  angel  come  down  from  heaven,  clothed 
with  a cloud ; and  a rainbow  was  upon  his  head,  and 
his  face  was  as  it  were  the  sun,  and  his  feet  as  pillars 
of  fire : And  he  had  in  his  hand  a little  book  open : 
And  he  set  his  right  foot  upon  the  sea,  and  his  left 
foot  on  the  earth.  * * * And  the  angel  which  I 

saw  stand  upon  the  sea  and  upon  the  earth  lifted  up 
his  hand  to  heaven,  and  sware  by  Him  that  liveth 
forever  and  ever,  who  created  heaven,  and  the  things 
that  therein  are,  and  the  earth,  and  the  things  that 
therein  are,  and  the  sea,  and  the  things  which  are 
therein,  that  there  should  be  time  no  longer.”  {Rev. 
x,  1,  2,  5,  6). 

In  a subsequent  vision,  John  says : “ And  I saw 

a great  white  throne,  and  Him  that  sat  on  it,  from 
whose  face  the  earth  and  the  heaven  fled  away ; and 
there  was  found  no  place  for  them.  And  I saw  the 
dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before  God;  and  the 
books  were  opened:  and  another  book  was  opened, 
which  is  the  book  of  life:  and  the  dead  were  judged 
out  of  those  things  which  were  written  in  the  books, 
according  to  their  works.”  {Rev.  xx,  11,  12) . “And 
He  said  unto  me,  It  is  done.  I am  Alpha  and  Omega, 
the  beginning  and  the  end.”  {Rev.  xxi,  6).  “And 
He  that  sat  on  the  throne  said,  Behold,  I make  all 
things  new.”  {Rev.  xxi,  5) . In  confirmation  of 
this,  John  tells  us:  “And  I saw  a new  heaven  and  a 
new  earth : for  the  first  heaven  and  the  first  earth 
were  passed  away ; and  there  was  no  more  sea.  And 
I,  John,  saw  the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem,  coming- 
down  from  God  out  of  heaven,  prepared  as  a bride 


54 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


adorned  for  her  husband.”  (Rev.  xxi,  1,  2) . This 
“new  heaven”  which  John  saw,  was  not  the  final 
abode  of  the  blest,  for  this  is  described  as  the  holy 
city , New  Jerusalem;  it  was  a material  heaven,  with 
all  the  phenomena  of  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  which 
characterizes  our  material  heaven.  The  “ new  earth  ” 
which  John  saw  was  a material  earth,  with  all  the 
phenomena  of  plant,  animal,  and  immortal  life,  which 
characterizes  our  earth. 

The  intense,  inconceivable  heat,  resulting  from 
the  falling  of  the  luminaries  upon  “the  earth,  even 
as  a fig  tree  casteth  her  untimely  figs,  when  she  is 
shaken  of  a mighty  mind,”  would  resolve  the  solid 
and  liquid  matter  of  the  universe  into  its  original  gase- 
ous state.  When  this  immense  gaseous  mass,  has 
lost  its  activity,  and  become  stilled , it  will  be  in  just 
the  condition  described  in  Gen.  i,  2;  and  out  of  this 
immense  mass  of  gaseous  matter,  God  will  form  the 
“new  heaven  and  the  new  earth,”  which  John  saw; 
and  his  promise  to  “ make  all  things  new,”  will  be 
redeemed. 

Natural  science  teaches  that  matter  is  imperish- 
able. (Haeckel) . And  that  of  all  the  immense  vol- 
ume of  matter  in  the  universe,  not  one  atom  is  ever 
lost.  Mr.  Haeckel  in  discussing  this  question  sajTs: 
“Where  a natural  body  seems  to  disappear,  as  for 
example  by  burning,  decaying,  evaporation,  etc.,  it 
merely  changes  its  form,  its  physical  composition  or 
chemical  combination.  In  like  manner  the  coming 
into  existence  of  a natural  body,  for  example,  of  a 
crystal,  a fungus,  an  infusorium,  depends  merely 
upon  the  different  particles,  which  had  before  existed 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


55 


in  a certain  form  or  combination,  assuming  a new 
form  or  combination  in  consequence  of  changed  con- 
ditions of  existence.  But  never  yet  has  an  instance 
been  observed  of  even  the  smallest  particle  of  matter 
having  vanished,  or  even  of  an  atom  being  added  to 
the  already  existing  mass.”  ( History  of  Creation , 
Vol.  i,  p.  8) . 

Who,  but  the  great  Architect  of  the  universe, 
could  have  brought  into  existence  this  wonderful 
combination  of  elements,  which  is  not  self -existent, 
neither  is  it  destructible  through  any  physical  agency; 
and  out  of  which  all  bodies  are  formed?  In  the 
absence  of  a better  name,  we  may  regard  the  term 
universe,  as  descriptive  of  a vast  receptacle,  in  which 
matter  was  created,  in  which  it  is  held,  and  from  which 
not  an  atom  ever  escapes.  And  just  as  the  existence 
of  matter,  even  in  its  primitive  state,  the  gaseous, 
clearly  demonstrates  the  existence  of  a Creator,  so 
does  this  preservation  of  matter  clearly  demonstrate 
the  existence  of  a preserver.  And  just  as  the  pres- 
ence of  matter  in  all  its  varied  forms,  celestial  and 
terrestrial,  in  which  we  find  it  to-day,  bespeaks  design, 
so  does  this  careful  preservation  of  even  the  minut- 
est atom  of  matter,  bespeak  the  most  far-reaching 
design;  and  this  design,  we  find  revealed  in  John’s 
vision  of  “a  new  heaven  and  a new  earth.” 

This  indicates  that  the  command  be  “not  sloth- 
ful in  business,”  never  emanated  from  a being  who 
is  himself  an  idler ; and  that  prior  to  the  formation 
of  our  present  world,  God  has  not  occupied  His 
throne  in  the  heaven  of  heavens  in  utter  idleness. 


56 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


But  that  just  as  it  is  man’s  disposition  to  combine , so 
is  it  God’s  disposition  to  create. 

We  are  not  of  those  who  think  with  Bruno  that 
there  are  other  worlds  than  ours,  and  that  perhaps 
many  of  them  are  inhabited.  On  the  contrary,  we  ac- 
cept the  plain  teaching  of  the  Bible  that  the  earth  is 
the  only  habitable  globe;  and  that  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars,  were  made  for  the  purposes  described  in  the 
Mosaic  Record.  But  we  feel  assured  that  there  were 
other  ‘‘worlds  ” than  ours;  and  that  each  of  them  pos- 
sessed an  inhabited  earth,  and  that  there  will  be  other 
worlds  than  ours,  and  that  they  also  will  each  have 
an  inhabited  earth.  It  was  one  of  these — the  one 
which  will  supercede  our  world — that  John  saw  in 
his  vision. 

The  evidence  that  other  “worlds”  similar  to  ours 
preceeded  it,  is  found  in  the  statements  of  Paul  as 
follows : “ God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by 
His  Son,  whom  He  hath  appointeth  heir  of  all 
things,  by  whom  also  He  made  the  worlds.”  ( Heb . i, 
1,  2).  “Through  faith  we  understand  that  the 
worlds  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God.  {Heb.  xi,  3) . 
If  our  world  was  not  preceded  by  others  similar  to 
it,  why  does  Paul  refer  to  worlds , thus  using  the  plu- 
ral and  in  the  past  tense t Evidently,  Paul  desired 
us  to  understand  that  there  were  other  worlds  than 
ours,  just  as  John  desired  us  to  understand  that  there 
will  be  other  worlds  than  ours. 

This  being  true  it  follows  that  the  beginning,  as  de- 
scribed in  the  first  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Gen- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


57 


esis,  must  be  sought  for  in  the  remotest  depths  of  eter- 
nity ; and  that,  intervening  between  the  beginning  in 
which  matter  was  created , and  the  production  of  light 
as  described  in  the  third  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  there  is  an  interval  of  such  inconceivable 
magnitude  as  can  only  be  measured  by  a succession 
of  perhaps  myriads  of  worlds  like  ours. 

Both  scripture  and  science  teach  that  this  world 
had  a beginning;  and  while  science  clearly  indicates, 
the  Bible  plainly  states  that  this  world  will  have  an 
ending. 

The  initial  step  in  the  formation  of  the  world, — 
the  movement  of  matter , resulting  in  the  production  of 
light , on  the  “first  day,”  as  described  in  the  third 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, — marked  the  be- 
ginning of  time;  while  the  declaration  of  the  angel 
whom  John  saw  “ stand  upon  the  sea  and  upon  the 
earth,”  and  “sware”  that  “there  should  be  time  no 
longer” — marked  the  end  of  time.  This  indicates 
that  time  begins  with  the  formation  of  a world , and 
ends  with  its  dissolution.  Hence,  time  is  but  a 
period  of  eternity  just  as  a day,  or  a week,  or  a year , 
is  a period  of  time.  This  enables  us  to  realize  that, 
just  as  a plant,  or  an  animal,  has  its  germ,  its  form- 
ative period,  its  youth,  its  maturity,  its  decline,  and 
its  final  dissolution,  so  has  a world  its  germ — matter 
— its  formative  period,  as  described  in  the  Mosaic 
Record;  its  youth,  its  maturity,  its  decline,  and  its 
final  dissolution,  described  in  Revelation.  Further 
evidence  is  found  in  the  fact  that  God  generously 
imparted  to  John  the  knowledge,  which  he  transmits 
to  us  that,  “ the  first  heaven  and  the  first  earth  had 


58 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


passed  away,”  and  that  the  sea  had  also  passed 
away.  Then  the  kindly  hand  which  led  Joseph  as  a 
flock,  gently  thrust  aside  the  veil,  which  intervenes 
between  time  and  eternity,  and  enabled  John,  in  the 
light  of  inspired  revelation  to  behold  the  amazing 
spectacle,  of  a “ a new  heaven  and  a new  earth.” 

This  exalted  view  of  God,  and  His  creative  power, 
as  clearly  revealed  in  the  scriptures,  and  as  clearly 
sustained  by  the  scriptures,  should  enable  us  to 
more  fully  realize,  and  to  more  highly  appreciate  the 
truth,  and  sublimity  of  that  inspiring  declaration  of 
the  Psalmist:  “ Before  the  mountains  were  brought 
forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the 
world,  even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting  thou  art 
God.” 

The  First  Cosmogonic  Day. 

THE  PRODUCTION  OF  LIGHT. 

“ And  God  said,  Let  there  be  light : and  there 
was  light. 

“ And  God  saw  the  light,  that  it  was  good : and 
God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness. 

“ And  God  called  the  light  Day,  and  the  darkness, 
He  called  Night.  And  the  evening  and  the  morning 
were  the  first  day.  (Gen.  i,  3,  4,  5). 

The  opinion  is  generally  entertained  by  those 
who  profess  to  believe  in  the  Bible  that  there  was  a 
creation,  that  is,  that  something  was  created , on  each 
one  of  the  six  days  of  the  cosmogonic  week ; but  this 
is  a mistake,  as  shown  by  the  language  of  the  narra- 
tive. As  shown  in  a previous  chapter,  there  are 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


59 


three — and  only  three  creations  described  in  the  Mo- 
saic Record ; the  first  of  these — the  matter  creation — 
occurred  in  the  “ beginning,”  a period  distinct  from 
the  cosmogonic  week,  which  opened  on  the  “ first 
day.”  The  second  creation  is  described  in  connection 
with  the  introduction  of  animal  life  on  the  “ fifth 
day;”  and  the  third  creation  is  ‘described  in  connec- 
tion with  the  introduction  of  man  on  the  “ sixth  day.” 
Hence,  there  were  but  two  creations  which  occurred 
within  the  cosmogonic  week.  And  it  is  significant 
that  no  creation  is  described  in  connection  with  the 
“first  day.” 

In  discussing  God’s  command,  “Let  there  be 
light,”  Professor  Guyot  says: 

“We  have  now  a starting  point,  but  yet  no  activ- 
ity, no  progress.  All  beginnings  are  in  darkness  and 
silence.  The  era  of  progress  opens  with  the  first 
day’s  work.  At  God’s  command,  movement  begins 
and  the  first  result  is  the  production  of  light.  This  was 
no  creation,  but  a simple  manifestation  of  the  activ- 
ity of  matter;  for,  according  to  modern  physics,  heat 
and  light  are  but  different  intensities  of  the  vibratory 
motions  of  matter.”  ( Creation , pp.  43,  44). 

This  being  true,  it  follows  that  God’s  com- 
mand, “ Let  there  be  light,”  was  equivalent  to  His 
commanding,  Let  there  be  movement  in  matter! 
To  those  who  have  never  investigated  the  subject,  it 
may  seem  a matter  of  surprise  that  the  chaotic  con- 
dition of  the  universe  as  described  in  the  second 
verse  of  Genesis,  should  be  followed  by  the  produc- 
tion of  light  which  was  evidently  not  derived  from 
the  luminaries,  since  thev  were  not  in  existence;  but 


60 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


Mr.  Guyot’s  explanation  enables  us  to  understand 
that  this  was  not  solar  light,  but  cosmic  light,  result- 
ing from  the  movement  of  matter. 

Many  theories  have  been  advanced  to  explain 
how  God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness ; but 
upon  investigating  them,  we  have  been  compelled  to 
reject  them  all  as  being  in  conflict  with  the  general 
teachings  of  the  Mosaic  Record.  We  have  no  data 
upon  which  to  base  an  opinion  as  to  how  God  divided 
the  light  from  the  darkness,  and  in  the  absence  of 
data,  we  decline  to  speculate,  since  mere  speculation 
is  apt  to  mislead ; besides,  we  should  profit  by  the 
silence  of  the  inspired  writer  upon  the  subject,  and 
be  silent. 

The  length  of  time  embraced  in  the  term  “ day,” 
which  the  inspired  writer  employs  in  his  division  of 
the  cosmogonic  week,  has  been  the  subject  of  no 
little  controversy  among  students  of  the  Bible ; many 
believe  them  to  have  been  solar  days  of  twenty-four 
hours;  but  the  falsity  of  this  belief  is  shown  by  the 
record ; the  solar  day  of  twenty-four  hours  is  meas- 
ured by  the  sun,  while  three  of  the  creative  days 
passed  before  the  sun  was  made.  Further  evidence 
that  the  days  described  in  the  Mosaic  Record  were 
not  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  but  were  indefinite 
periods  of  time,  is  found  in  Genesis  ii,  4,  where  the 
whole  creative  week  is  described  as  the  “day  that  the 
Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens.”  Upon 
the  question  as  to  whether  the  days  of  the  creative 
week  were  solar  days  or  days  of  twenty-four  hours 
each,  or  whether  they  were  periods  of  indefinite 
length,  the  science  of  geology  furnishes  the  most  ab- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


61 


solute  proof.  The  Mosaic  Record  teaches  that  the 
fish,  and  fowl,  and  beast,  and  man,  were  all  brought 
into  existence  on  the  fifth  and  sixth  days  of  the 
creative!  week.  The  remains  of  the  first  animals  to 
make  their  appearance  on  the  globe  are  found  in  the 
lower  stratas  of  the  earth ; while  those  of  more  recent 
origin,  as  well  as  those  of  man,  are  found  nearest  the 
surface  of  the  earth.  Between  the  remains  of  the 
earliest  animals  which  are  found  deepest  in  the  earth, 
and  the  remains  of  man,  which  are  found  nearest 
the  surface,  there  are  immense  deposits,  thousands 
of  feet  in  thickness,  which  furnish  the  most  con- 
clusive proof  that  they  were  not  made  in  the  brief 
space  of  two  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each.  Thus 
science  and  the  scriptures  combine  to  teach  us  that 
the  days  of  the  cosmogonic  week  were  long  periods 
of  time  that  are  not  to  be  measured  by  hours,  but 
by  ages.  The  six  cosmogonic  days  closes  with  the 
creation  of  man  on  the  sixth  day;  this  is  followed 
by  the  seventh  day : “ And  on  the  seventh  day  God 

ended  His  work  which  He  had  made ; and  He  rested 
on  the  seventh  day  from  all  His  work  which  He  had 
made.  And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanc- 
tified it : because  that  in  it  He  had  rested  from  all 
His  work  which  God  created  and  made.”  (Gen.  ii, 
2,3). 

The  following  command  was  given  in  the  Deca- 
logue to  commemorate  the  six  cosmogonic  days  in 
which  God  created  the  material  universe,  and  the 
seventh  day  in  which  He  rested  from  His  works : 
“ Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy.  Six 
days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work ; but  the 


62 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God ; in 
it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son, 
nor  thy  daughter,  thy  manservant,  nor  thy  maid- 
servant, nor  thy  cattle,  nor  the  stranger  that  is 
within  thy  gates.”  {Ex.  xx,  8,  9,  10).  Thus  a 
weekly  Sabbath  was  prescribed  as  a memorial  of  the 
seventh  day  in  which  God  rested  from  his  work  of 
Creation. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  seventh  day  de- 
scribed in  Genesis  ii,  4,  unlike  the  preceding  six 
days,  is  not  divided  into  an  evening  and  morning ; 
but  more  significant  still  is  the  fact  that  no  mention 
is  made  of  an  eighth  day  following  the  seventh  day. 
This  indicates  that  the  seventh  day  has  not  yet 
ended.  Both  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences  teach 
that  there  has  been  no  creation  since  the  creation  of 
man ; from  this  it  follows  that  God  has  not  resumed 
His  work,  and  that  the  seventh  day  is  still  in  exist- 
ence ; that  it  will  continue  to  exist  throughout  time, 
and  that  the  destruction  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
will  mark  its  close.  The  language  of  the  Mosaic 
Record  clearly  indicates  that  the  seventh  day  upon 
which  God  rested  from  His  work  began  immediately 
after  the  creation  of  man  and  his  assignment  to  the 
duties  upon  the  earth  for  which  he  was  designed, 
and  that  man  has  always  labored,  and  will  continue 
to  labor  on  God’s  day  of  rest,  which  will  close  with 
the  end  of  time.  The  fact  that  the  seventh  day — 
God’s  day  of  rest — has  continued  from  the  Creation 
to  the  present  time  with  no  evidence  of  the  near  ap- 
proach of  its  end,  show  that  God’s  days,  unlike  man’s 
days,  are  indefinitely  long  periods  of  time;  it  also 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


63 


goes  far  to  prove  that  each  of  the  six  creative  days 
which  preceded  it  were  correspondingly  long  periods 
of  time.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the 
length  of  the  six  creative  days,  or  that  of  the 
seventh  day;  but  we  feel  assured  that  the  strict 
order  and  harmony  which  characterizes  all  of  God’s 
works,  is  expressed  in  the  length  of  the  six  creative 
days  and  in  the  seventh  day  which  followed  them ; 
and  that  they  are  all  of  equal  duration,  else  why  was 
the  creative  work  divided  into  periods  at  all  ? Hence, 
if  we  could  ascertain  the  length  of  any  one  of  the 
creative  days,  we  would  have  the  length  of  every 
other  one  of  the  creative  days  and  that  of  the 
seventh  day  which  followed  them.  Then  if  we 
could  ascertain  just  howr  long  it  has  been  since  man 
was  created,  we  could  calculate  to  a nicety  just  how 
long  it  will  be  before  the  angel  will  stand  with  one 
foot  upon  the  sea,  and  one  upon  the  land,  and  raising 
his  hand  to  heaven  will  declare  the  end  of  time. 


CHAPTER  III. 


Formation  of  the  Heavens. 

“And  God  said,  Let  there  be  a firmament  in 
the  midst  of  the  waters,  and  let  it  separate  the  waters 
from  the  waters. 

“And  God  made  the  firmament,  and  separated 
the  waters  which  were  under  the  firmament  from  the 
waters  which  were  above  the  firmament,  and  it 
was  so. 

“And  God  called  the  firmament  heaven.  And 
the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  second  day.” 
{Gen.  i,  6,  7,  8) . 

From  a mere  casual  glance  at  the  texts  describ- 
ing the  work  of  the  first  and  second  creative  days, 
we  would  be  led  to  suppose  that  the  work  of  those 
days  was  confined  solely  to  the  subjects  mentioned 
— the  production  of  light,  the  formation  of  the 
heavens,  etc.  But  when  we  examine  the  texts  de- 
scribing the  work  of  the  first  and  second  creative 
days  in  connection  with  verse  9,  of  the  Record,  which 
describes  the  first  work  of  the  third  creative  day,  it 
becomes  plain  that  while  the  heavens  were  being 
formed,  the  earth  also  was  being  formed;  and  that 
when  the  formation  of  the  heavens  were  completed, 
the  formation  of  the  earth  was  completed ; and  it  is 
highly  probable  that  the  formation  of  the  earth  really 
began  with  the  movement  of  matter  on  the  first  day. 

64 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


65 


Be  this  as  it  may,  the  language  of  the  text  describing 
the  opening  work  of  the  third  creative  day  leaves  no 
room  for  doubt  that  at  the  close  of  the  second  creat- 
ive day,  the  formation  of  the  earth,  as  well  as  that  of 
the  heavens,  were  completed,  as  shown  by  the  fol- 
lowing : 

“ And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven 
be  gathered  together  into  one  place,  and  let  the  dry 
land  appear.  And  God  called  the  dry  land  earth; 
and  the  gathering  together  of  the  waters  called  he 
seas:  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.”  (Gen.  i, 
9,  10). 

Thus,  the  first  command  given  on  the  third 
creative  day  clearly  shows  that  at  the  opening  of  that 
day,  the  earth  was  already  formed,  and  that  its 
formation  was  completed  on  the  second  creative  day 
when  the  heavens  were  formed.  Hence,  the  first 
command  given  on  the  third  creative  day  resulted 
in  the  waters  enveloping  the  earth,  perhaps  in  the 
form  of  vapor,  being  condensed  into  water,  and 
these  waters  gathered  together  into  the  indentations 
in  the  earth’s  surface,  which  God  had  prepared  for 
their  reception,  and  which  he  called  “seas.”  This 
shows  the  close  relationship  which  exists  between 
the  heaven  and  the  earth:  (1)  from  the  fact  that  the 
formation  of  each  was  completed  on  the  second  cos- 
mogonic day ; (2)  from  the  fact  that  the  heaven  was 
formed  around  the  earth.  The  egg  of  a fowl  with 
its  yolk  surrounded  by  the  white  albuminous  part, 
and  the  shell  enveloping  the  whole,  would  very 
properly  represent  the  relations  which  the  earth, 
the  atmosphere,  and  the  heaven  sustain  to  each 


66 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


other ; the  yolk  would  represent  the  earth ; the  white 
of  the  egg  would  represent  the  surrounding  atmos- 
phere ; and  the  shell,  enveloping  the  whole,  would 
represent  the  heaven.  The  correctness  of  our  illus- 
tration is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that,  at  whatever 
point  we  stand  and  look  out  from  the  earth,  we  face 
the  heaven.  This  could  not  be  so  if  the  heaven  did 
not  envelope  the  earth  and  its  atmosphere,  just  as 
the  shell  envelopes  the  white  and  the  yolk  of  the  egg. 

Further  evidence  of  this  is  found  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  text:  “And  God  said,  Let  there  be 

a firmament  in  the  midst  of  the  waters,  and  let  it 
divide  the  waters  from  the  waters.  And  God  made 
the  firmament,  and  divided  the  waters  which  were 
under  the  firmament  from  the  waters  which  were 
above  the  firmament;  and  it  was  so.”  What  was  so? 
Simply  that  the  firmament  or  heaven  was  made, 
and  subserved  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  designed; 
it  separated  the  waters  above  it  from  the  waters  be- 
neath it.  It  is  easy  to  see  that,  to  act  as  a separator 
between  the  waters  above  it  and  the  waters  beneath 
it,  the  firmament  must  be  impervious  to  water, 
though  not  necessarily  impervious  to  heat  and  light; 
glass,  for  example,  though  impervious  to  water,  is 
penetrated  by  the  rays  of  heat  and  light. 

Our  views  as  to  the  existence  of  a firmament  or 
heaven  impervious  to  water  enveloping  the  earth 
and  its  atmosphere,  brings  us  in  conflict  with  the 
modern  “World-builders”  who  attempt  to  thrust 
God  aside  and  substitute  their  own  atheistic  theories 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  universe  for  His  word;  our 
views  will  also  be  in  conflict  with  those  of  the  many 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


67 


theologians  who  attempt  to  twist  the  word  of  God 
and  the  sciences  into  harmony  with  the  theories  of 
atheists,  but  this  will  give  us  little  concern  so  long 
as  we  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  scripture  and 
the  sciences.  We  shall  let  the  Bible  tell  its  own 
story,  and  shall  appeal  to  the  sciences  to  demonstrate 
its  truth  whenever  it  is  possible  for  them  to  do  so. 
We  recognize  God — the  Creator  of  the  heaven  and 
the  earth — as  the  author  of  all  language  and  all 
speech.  Hence  we  unhesitatingly  accord  Him  the 
most  unerring  knowledge  of  the  value  of  words ; and 
when  He  tells  us  that  He  made  a firmament  or 
heaven  in  the  midst  of  the  waters  to  separate  the 
waters  above  it  from  the  waters  beneath  it,  we  at 
once  recognize  the  firmament  or  heaven  as  im- 
pervious to  water,  atheists,  infidels,  and  so-called 
theologians  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  second  verse  of 
the  Mosaic  Record,  the  inspired  writer  terms  the 
gaseous  matter  of  the  universe  “ waters.”  “ And  the 
Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.” 
The  language  of  the  text  describing  the  work  of  the 
second  and  third  creative  days  as  above  quoted, 
shows  that  the  earth  was  the  first  of  the  great  bodies 
formed ; that  it  was  formed  in  the  midst  of  the  im- 
mense gaseous  mass  of  the  universe,  described  as 
“ waters  ; ” and  that  on  the  second  creative  day  God 
made  a firmament  in  the  midst  of  the  waters,  and 
enveloped  the  earth,  which,  if  not  already  formed, 
was  in  process  of  formation,  and  thus  separated  the 
waters  above,  or  on  the  outside  of  the  firmament, 
from  the  waters  beneath,  or  within  the  firmament. 


68 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Hence,  the  first  work  of  the  third  creative  day  was  to 
condense  into  water  the  vapors  enveloping  the  earth, 
and  the  gathering  of  these  “ waters  ” into  “ seas,”  to 
“ let  the  dry  land  appear.” 

This  teaching  of  the  Mosaic  Record  that  God 
made  a firmament  or  heaven  in  the  midst  of  the  waters 
to  separate  the  waters  above  from  the  waters  beneath 
it,  shows  that  all  the  waters  of  the  universe  are  not 
confined  to  the  earth,  but  that  an  immense  amount, 
perhaps  the  great  bulk  of  the  waters  of  the  universe 
which  enveloped  the  earth  prior  to  the  formation  of 
the  heaven,  are  now  situated  above  the  heaven.  This 
teaching  of  the  Bible  as  to  the  existence  of  water 
above  the  heaven  is  fully  sustained  by  the  sciences. 
The  planet  Mars  is  one  of  the  heavenly  bodies  upon 
which  water  is  known  to  exist.  Sir  Robert  S.  Ball, 
the  eminent  professor  of  astronomy  at  Dublin,  in 
discussing  Mars  says : 

“ It  seems  hard  to  decline  the  suggestion  that  the 
marks  on  the  planet  may  really  correspond  to  the  divi- 
sions of  land  and  water  on  that  globe.  There  are  cir- 
cumstances which  strongly  suggest  that  water  may  also 
be  present.  At  the  poles  of  Mars  are  large  white  re- 
gions, * * which  undergo  periodic  changes,  and  it  has 
been  surmised  that  they  are  due  to  an  accumulation 
of  ice  and  snow  on  the  polar  regions  of  the  planet. 
On  some  occasions,  indeed,  an  “ice-cap”  on  Mars, 
with  its  brilliancy  and  its  sharply  defined  margin,  is 
a striking  feature  in  the  telescopic  view  of  the  pla- 
net.” ( The  Story  of  the  Heaven,  pp.  186,  187). 

The  existence  of  water  on  Mars  has  misled 
many  into  supposing  that  its  conditions  were  more 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


69 


or  less  similar  to  those  of  the  earth,  and  that  like 
the  earth,  Mars  was  inhabited;  these  absurdities 
are  entertained  in  flagrant  disregard  of  the  plain 
teachings  of  the  Bible  that,  the  earth  is  the  only  hab- 
itable globe,  and  that  the  luminaries  were  designed 
for  other  purposes.  A few  years  ago  fanaticism  on 
the  Mars  question  ran  so  high  that  many  were  on 
the  lookout  for  signals  from  the  inhabitants  of  that 
planet ; and  there  are  not  a few  who  still  seriously 
entertain  the  belief  that  we  shall  soon  be  in  com- 
munication with  the  inhabitants  of  Mars.  These 
absurd  hopes  were  born  of  the  grossest  infidelity  and 
are  doomed  to  disappointment.  A few  decades  ago 
many  who  were  ignorant  of,  or  indifferent  to,  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible  that  the  earth  is  the  only  hab- 
itable globe,  and  that  the  luminaries  were  designed 
for  other  purposes,  were  loud  in  the  expression 
of  their  belief  that  the  moon  is  inhabited.  In  their 
fanaticism  they  even  went  so  far  as  to  map  out  and 
name  mountains,  seas,  etc.,  on  the  moon;  but  later 
and  more  careful  investigation,  aided  by  improved 
mechanical  appliances,  has  exploded  these  theories; 
it  is  now  known  that  the  moon  is  practically  desti- 
tute of  both  air  and  water,  and  is  consequently  in- 
capable of  sustaining  either  plant  or  animal  life.  In 
contrasting  the  moon  and  the  other  heavenly  bodies, 
Sir  Robert  S.  Ball  says: 

“But  when  we  look  at  the  moon  with  our  tele- 
scopes we  see  no  direct  evidence  of  water.  Close 
inspection  shows  that  the  so-called  lunar  seas  are 
deserts,  often  marked  with  small  craters  and  rocks. 
The  telescope  reveals  no  seas  and  no  oceans,  no 


70 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


lakes  and  no  rivers.  Nor  is  the  grandeur  of  the 
moon’s  scenery  ever  impaired  by  clouds  over  her 
surface.  Whenever  the  moon  is  above  our  horizon, 
and  terrestrial  clouds  are  out  of  the  way,  we  can  see 
the  features  of  our  satellite’s  surface  with  distinct- 
ness. There  are  no  clouds  in  the  moon;  there  are 
not  even  the  mists  or  the  vapors  which  invariably 
arise  wherever  water  is  present,  and  therefore  astron- 
omers have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  sur- 
face of  the  globe  which  attends  the  earth  is  a sterile 
and  a waterless  desert. 

“ Another  essential  element  of  organic  life  is 
also  absent  from  the  moon.  Our  globe  is  surrounded 
with  a deep  clothing  of  air  resting  on  the  surface, 
and  extending  above  our  heads  to  the  height  of 
about  200  or  300  miles.  * * * For  all  purposes 

of  respiration,  as  we  understand  the  term,  we  may 
say  that  there  is  no  air  on  the  moon,  and  an  inhabit- 
ant of  our  earth  transferred  thereto  would  be  as  cer- 
tainly suffocated  as  he  would  be  in  the  middle  of 
space.  * * * Man  is  a creature  adapted  for  life 

under  circumstances  which  are  very  narrowly  limited. 
A few  degrees  of  temperature  more  or  less,  a slight 
variation  in  the  composition  of  air,  the  precise  suit- 
ability of  food,  make  all  the  difference  between  health 
and  sickness,  between  life  and  death.  Looking  be- 
yond the  moon,  into  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
universe,  we  find  countless  celestial  globes  with  every 
conceivabl  variety  of  temperature  and  of  constitu- 
tion. Amid  this  vast  number  of  worlds  with  which 
space  is  tenanted,  are  there  any  inhabited  by  living 
beings?  To  this  great  question  science  can  make  no 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


71 


response:  we  can  not  tell.  * * * ‘It  is  not  at  all 

probable  that  among  the  million  spheres  of  the  uni- 
verse there  is  a single  one  exactly  like  our  earth  — 
like  it  in  the  possession  of  air  and  of  water,  like  it  in 
size  and  in  composition.  It  does  not  seem  probable 
that  a man  could  live  for  one  hour  on  any  body  in 
the  universe  except  the  earth,  or  that  an  oak  tree 
could  live  in  any  other  sphere  for  a single  season.’  ” 
{The  Story  of  the  Heavens,  pp.  76,  77,  78,  79). 

Thus  the  sciences  sustain  the  teachings  of 
scripture  that  our  earth  is  the  only  one  of  the 
great  bodies  which  possess  all  the  conditions  nec- 
essary to  the  existence  of  planet  and  animal  life. 
Hence,  the  presence  of  water  on  Mars  does  not  dis- 
prove the  teachings  of  the  Bible  that  our  earth  is 
the  only  habitable  globe,  and  that  the  sun,  moon  and 
stars  were  designed  for  other  purposes.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  presence  of  water  on  Mars  clearly 
sustains  the  Bible  account  of  the  firmament,  or 
heaven  which  God  made  in  the  midst  of  the  waters, 
“and  divided  the  waters  which  were  under  the 
firmament  from  the  waters  which  were  above  the 
firmament;”  and  shows  that  the  waters  of  Mars  are 
a part  of  the  waters  above  the  firmament.  Other 
parts  of  these  celestial  waters  are  perhaps  situated 
in  the  clouds  and  vapors  which  science  teaches 
us  envelop  Jupiter.  (Ibid,  p.  217).  And  doubt- 
less “the  waters  above  the  firmament,”  are  dis- 
tributed among  numbers  of  other  planets  of  the 
existence  of  which  we  have  no  knowledge;  for,  with 
all  our  boasted  astronomical  learning  our  knowledge 


72 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


of  the  heavens  and  of  the  celestial  bodies  is  ex- 
tremely limited. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  original  chaotic  con- 
dition of  the  universe  is  described  in  the  second 
verse  of  the  Mosaic  Record,  as  the  deep.  “And 
darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep.”  But  long 
after  the  Creation — in  the  narrative  of  the  Deluge — 
we  find  that  God  said:  “And  behold  I,  even  I,  do 
bring  a flood  of  waters  upon  the  earth,  to  destroy  all 
flesh  wherein  is  the  breath  of  life,  from  under 
heaven;  and  everything  that  is  in  the  earth  shall 
die.”  (Gen.  vi,  17).  Thus,  Ave  are  plainly  taught 
that  the  waters  which  deluged  the  earth  were  not 
terrestrial  waters;  they  did  not  belong  upon  the 
earth,  or  within  it.  God  said:  “I  do  bring  a flood 
of  waters  upon  the  earth.”  The  place  from  Avhich 
the  waters  of  the  Deluge  Avere  brought  is  plainly 
stated  as  follows:  “In  the  six  hundredth  year  of 
Noah’s  life,  in  the  second  month,  the  seA^enteenth 
day  of  the  month,  the  same  day  AArere  all  the  foun- 
tains of  the  great  deep  broken  up,  and  the  Avindows 
of  heaven  Avere  opened.  And  the  rain  AAras  upon  the 
earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights.”  (Gen.  \Tii,  11, 
12).  Thus,  Ave  are  told  that  the  AAraters  AA’hich  del- 
uged the  earth  were  celestial  AAraters,  which  God 
brought  upon  the  earth  in  the  form  of  rain  for  forty 
days  and  forty  nights. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  Genesis  ATii,  Averse  11, 
as  aboA^e  quoted,  the  inspired  writer  refers  to  the 
great  deep — “The  same  day  AATere  all  the  fountains 
of  the  great  deep  broken  up,  and  the  windows 
of  heaven  AArere  opened.”  This  term,  “ the  great 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


73 


deep,”  is  a comparative  term,  and  clearly  indi- 
cates the  existence  of  a lesser  deep.  This  enables 
us  to  understand  (1)  that  the  original  “deep” 
described  in  the  second  verse  of  the  Mosaic  Record, 
was  divided  into  a greater  and  a lesser  deep  by 
the  firmament  which  God  made  “in  the  midst  of 
the  waters,”  and  separated  the  water  above  it  from 
the  waters  beneath  it;  hence,  the  “great  deep”  ex- 
tends from  the  firmament  which  envelops  the  earth 
to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  universe;  while  the  lesser 
deep  is  that  immense  space  intervening  between  the 
firmament  and  the  surface  of  the  earth  and  its 
waters.  (2)  That  the  “great  deep”  is  the  reservoir 
from  which  the  waters  of  the  Deluge  were  drawn; 
and  “the  fountains  of  the  great  deep”  are  the  various 
planets  upon  which  these  waters  exist;  for  it  is  evi- 
dent that  “the  waters  above  the  firmament”  are 
not  scattered  promiscuously  throughout  the  “great 
deep,”  but  are  confined  to  certain  points  described  as 
“ fountains,”  and  that  Mars  is  evidently  one  of  those 
“ fountains.”  Hence,  when  man’s  shameless  crime 
had  corrupted  the  flesh  of  the  earth,  and  God  de- 
cided to  “ bring  a flood  of  waters  upon  the  earth  to 
destroy  all  flesh  wherein  is  the  breath  of  life  from 
under  heaven,”  He  made  openings  in  the  firma- 
ment or  heaven,  which  are  described  as  “the  win- 
dows of  heaven,”  and  precipitated  upon  the  earth 
“the  waters  which  were  above  the  firmament,”  and 
the  whole  earth  was  deluged.  “And  the  waters  in- 
creased exceedingly  upon  the  earth ; and  all  the  high 
hills  under  the  whole  heaven  were  covered.  Fifteen 


74 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


cubits  upward  did  the  waters  prevail,  and  the  moun- 
tains were  covered.”  {Gen.  vii,  19,  20). 

Thus,  the  Bible  plainly  teaches  that  the  waters 
which  God  employed  in  the  Deluge  were  drawn  from 
“ the  fountains  of  the  deep,”  which  are  situated 
above  the  heaven;  and  that  during  the  Deluge  these 
celestial  waters  held  the  same  relation  to  the  earth 
and  the  terrestrial  waters  that  they  sustained  prior  to 
the  time  when  God  made  the  “firmament  in  the 
midst  of  the  waters  to  divide  the  waters  from  the 
waters.”  Hence,  man’s  loathesome  crime  in  cor- 
rupting the  flesh  of  the  earth,  not  only  corrupted  the 
earth  in  the  eyes  of  God,  but  the  heaven  itself  was 
disastrously  affected  by  it,  and  the  office  of  separator 
between  the  celestial  and  the  terrestrial  waters  which 
God  designed  the  firmament  to  perform  was  neutral- 
ized for  the  time  being;  and  the  waters  above  it  were 
reunited  with  the  waters  beneath  it,  to  the  utter  de- 
struction of  all  terrestrial  life,  save  “ Noah  and  they 
that  were  with  him  in  the  ark.” 

Further  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  firmament 
and  of  the  waters  above  it,  and  also  the  fact  that  the 
earth  was  deluged  by  celestial  waters,  is  shown  by 
the  disposition  which  God  made  of  the  waters  of  the 
Deluge  after  the  accomplishment  of  their  destruc- 
tive task,  as  shown  by  the  following:  “And  God  re- 
. membered  Noah,  and  every  living  thing — that  was 
with  him  in  the  ark:  and  God  made  a wind  to  pass 
over  the  earth,  and  the  waters  assuaged;  the  fountains 
also  of  the  deep  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were 
stopped,  and  the  rain  from  heaven  was  restrained; 
and  the  waters  returned  from  off  the  earth  continu- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


75 


ally.”  (Gen.  viii,  1,  2,  3).  It  must  be  admitted 
that,  for  the  waters  to  have  returned  from  off  the 
earth  at  all,  they  must  have  returned  to  the  place 
from  whence  they  came;  and  this,  as  has  been 
shown,  is  above  the  heaven. 

Not  only  does  the  inspired  writer  of  the  narra- 
tive of  Creation  recognize  the  reality  of  the  firma- 
ment or  heaven;  the  existence  of  the  waters  above 
the  heaven ; and  that  the  waters  of  the  Deluge  were 
drawn  from  the  celestial  regions,  and  that  the  Deluge 
was  universal,  but  David  recognized  these  facts  in  sev- 
eral of  his  songs  of  praise  to  God,  as  follows:  “ Praise 
Him,  ye  heavens  of  heavens,  and  ye  waters  that  be 
above  the  heavens.”  “ Bless  the  Lord,  Oh  my  soul, 
* * * who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  that  they 
should  not  be  removed  forever.  Thou  coveredst  it 
with  the  deep  as  with  a garment:  the  waters  stood 
above  the  mountains.  At  thy  rebuke  they  fled;  at  the 
voice  of  thy  thunder,  they  hasted  away.  They  go  up 
by  the  mountains;  they  go  down  by  the  valleys  unto 
the  place  which  thou  hast  founded  for  them.  Thou 
hast  set  a bound  that  they  may  not  pass  over;  that 
they  come  not  again  to  cover  the  earth.”  ( Ps . cxlviii 
and  civ) . 

Thus  the  Psalmist  not  only  adds  his  testimony 
to  that  of  Moses  as  to  the  reality  of  the  firmament  or 
heaven,  and  the  waters  above  it,  but  also  testifies  to 
the  fact  that  the  waters  which  deluged  the  earth 
were  celestial  waters;  and  that  when  they  had  accom- 
plished the  destructive  mission  for  which  their  pres- 
ence on  the  earth  was  designed,  and  they  had  returned 
from  off  the  earth , God  re-established  the  firmament 


76 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


or  heaven  as  a “ bound,  that  they  may  not  pass  over, 
that  they  come  not  again  to  cover  the  earth.” 

Thus  the  Bible  clearly  describes  the  firmament 
or  heaven,  which  God  made  “ in  the  midst  of  the 
waters,”  to  separate  the  waters  above  it  from  the 
waters  beneath  it;  and  the  sciences  sustain  the 
Bible  at  every  point  where  it  is  possible  for  them  to 
throw  any  light  upon  the  subject;  and  we  are  even 
enabled  to  ascertain,  appropriately  at  least,  its  tem- 
perature, and  to  determine  that  it  is  intensely  cold. 

Sir  Robert  Ball,  in  discussing  the  temperature 
of  the  sun  says:  "The  sun  has  a temperature  far 
surpassing  any  that  we  artificially  produce,  either  in 
our  chemical  laboratories  or  our  metallurgical  estab- 
lishments. We  can  send  a galvanic  current  through 
a piece  of  platinum  wire.  The  wire  first  becomes  red 
hot,  then  white  hot;  then  it  glows  with  a brilliance 
almost  dazzling  until  it  fuses  and  breaks.  The  tem- 
perature of  the  melting  platinum  wire  could  hardly 
be  surpassed  in  the  most  elaborate  furnaces,  but  it 
does  not  attain  the  temperature  of  the  sun. 

“ It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  there  is  an 
apparent  discrepancy  between  a well-known  physi- 
cal fact  and  the  extremely  high  temperature  that  we 
find  it  necessary  to  attribute  to  the  sun.  ‘ If  the  sun 
were  hot,’  it  has  been  said,  then  the  nearer  we  ap- 
proach to  him,  the  hotter  we  should  feel;  yet  this 
does  not  seem  to  be  the  case.  On  the  top  of  a high 
mountain  we  are  nearer  to  the  sun,  and  yet  everybody 
knows  that  it  is  much  colder  up  there  than  in  the  val- 
ley beneath.  If  the  mountain  be  as  high  as  Mt.  Blanc, 
then  we  are  certainly  two  or  three  miles  nearer;  yet, 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


77 


instead  of  additional  warmth,  we  find  eternal  snow. 
A simple  illustration  will  lessen  the  difficulty.  Go 
into  a greenhouse  on  a sunshiny  day,  and  we  find  the 
temperature  much  hotter  there  than  outside.  The 
glass  will  permit  the  hot  sunbeams  to  enter,  but  it 
refuses  to  allow  them  out  again  with  equal  freedom, 
and  consequently  the  temperature  rises.  The  earth 
may,  from  this  point  of  view,  be  likened  to  a green- 
house, only  instead  of  the  panes  of  glass,  our  globe  is 
enveloped  by  an  enormous  coating  of  air.  Thus  on  the 
earth  surface,  we  are  as  it  were,  inside  the  greenhouse, 
and  we  benefit  by  the  interposition  of  the  atmos- 
phere; but  when  we  climb  very  high  mountains,  we 
gradually  pass  through  some  of  the  protecting  me- 
dium, and  then  we  suffer  from  the  cold.  If  we 
could  imagine  the  earth  to  be  deprived  of  its  coat  of 
air,  then  eternal  frost  would  reign  over  whole  con- 
tinents as  well  as  on  the  tops  of  the  mountains.” 
{Ibid,  pp.  27,  28) . 

With  all  due  respect  for  Professor  Ball,  we  must 
insist  that  his  illustration  fails  to  illustrate.  Surely, 
the  greater  or  less  amount  of  warmth  which  prevails 
immediately  about  the  earth’s  surface,  is  not  pro- 
duced by  its  “ enormous  coating  of  air.”  The  limit 
to  which  the  atmosphere  extends  from  the  earth,  is 
variously  estimated  at  from  40  to  300  miles;  Profes- 
sor Ball,  as  quoted  above,  places  it  at  “ 200  or  300 
miles;”  and  he  shows  that  the  great  bulk  of  the 
earth’s  atmosphere  is  intensely  cold.  Only  a small 
fraction  of  it  possesses  any  warmth  at  all;  and  this 
small  part  is  immediately  about  the  earth’s  surface. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  rays  of  heat  from  the 


78 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


sun  are  checked  at  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and  the 
heat  accumulates  there  and  warms  the  stratas  of  air 
immediately  enveloping  the  earth;  this  heating  pro- 
cess is  going  on  continually.  Aeronauts  have  made 
balloon  ascensions  to  an  altitude  of  more  than  seven 
miles,  but  such  was  the  rarity  of  the  atmosphere  at 
that  elevation  that  it  was  necessary  to  pump  air  to 
them  from  the  earth’s  surface;  at  the  same  time  the 
cold  was  so  intense,  that  they  narrowly  escaped  being 
frozen  to  death.  This  shows  that  the  atmospheric 
conditions  presented  by  the  earth  bear  no  resemb- 
lance to  those  of  a greenhouse.  In  a tightly  closed 
greenhouse  the  roof  is  comparatively  low,  and  the 
temperature  is  much  the  same  in  every  part  of  it; 
“the  glass  will  permit  the  hot  sunbeams  to  enter, 
but  refuses  to  allow  them  out  again  with  equal  free- 
dom;” the  continuous  stream  of  “hot  sunbeams” 
poured  into  the  greenhouse  and  retained  there  heats 
all  of  the  air  within  it,  “and  consequently  the  tem- 
perature rises.” 

But  the  very  reverse  is  true  of  the  earth.  The 
firmament  or  heavens  sustains  much  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  earth  that  the  glass  roof  of  the  greenhouse 
sustains  to  the  greenhouse,  in  that  it  confines  the 
atmosphere  of  the  earth  to  a given  space,  just  as  the 
glass  roof  and  walls  of  the  greenhouse  confines  its 
air  to  a given  space.  But  instead  of  a comparatively 
small  greenhouse  with  its  low  walls  and  roof  enclos- 
ing a small  amount  of  air  immediately  above  the 
earth’s  surface,  which  the  “ hot  sunbeams  ” are  cap- 
able of  heating,  the  firmament  or  heavens  is  situated 
at  a distance  of  many  miles  from  the  earth’s  surface, 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


79 


and  encloses  the  whole  atmosphere  of  this  globe,  and 
such  is  the  immensity  of  this  “ enormous  coating  of 
air  ” that  the  “ hot  sunbeams  ” are  powerless  to  heat 
it  as  they  do  the  small  amount  of  air  in  a greenhouse. 
The  result  is  that  the  “ hot  sunbeams  ” are  poured 
continuously  upon  the  earth’s  surface  where  their 
further  passage  is  checked,  and  such  amount  of  this 
heat  as  the  earth  does  not  absorb  is  radiated  into  the 
lower  stratas  of  air  which  immediately  envelop  the 
earth,  and  the  temperature  of  these  stratas  is  raised, 
while  the  upper  stratas,  extending  for  miles  and 
miles  to  the  outer  limits  of  the  atmosphere,  are  not 
affected,  and  maintain  an  extremely  low  temperature, 
which  is  derived  from  this  intensely  cold  firmament. 

The  firmament  or  heaven  which  envelops  the 
earth  and  its  atmosphere  marks  the  outer  limits  of 
the  atmosphere  and  confines  the  earth’s  atmosphere 
to  the  earth.  If  our  earth  was  situated  in  empty 
space,  with  no  structure  impervious  to  air  envelop- 
ing it  and  confining  its  atmosphere  to  certain  limits, 
the  atmosphere  would  long  since  have  been  diffused 
into  space,  and  the  earth  stripped  of  this  essential 
element  would  be  incapable  of  sustaining  either  plant 
or  animal  life.  But  this  is  not  all;  if  the  earth  was 
situated  in  empty  space,  with  no  structure  impervi- 
ous to  water  enveloping  the  earth,  the  intense  heat 
of  the  sun’s  rays  poured  upon  the  earth  continuously 
since  the  sun  was  formed,  would  long  since  have 
evaporated  the  last  drop  of  water  from  the  earth,  and 
thus  rendered  our  globe  incapable  of  supporting 
either  plant  or  animal  life.  Thus,  in  addition  to 
separating  the  waters  above  it  from  the  waters 


80 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


beneath  it,  the  firmament  or  heaven  confines  the 
atmosphere  and  waters  to  the  earth,  and  thus  con- 
tributes to  the  preservation  of  its  plant  and  animal 
life.  Hence,  but  for  the  existence  of  the  firmament 
the  earth,  like  the  moon,  would  be  a barren  waste, 
without  water,  without  atmosphere  and  without  plant 
and  animal  life. 

It  is  well  known  that  cold  air  is  heavier  than 
hot  air.  Hence,  if  it  were  discovered  that  the  temper- 
ature of  a greenhouse  was  not  the  same  throughout, 
it  would  be  found  that  the  colder,  heavier  air  was 
below,  at  the  floor;  and  that  the  hotter  lighter  air  was 
above,  and  immediately  under  the  glass.  But  these 
conditions  are  reversed  in  the  earth’s  “ enormous 
coating  of  air.”  The  warm  stratas  of  air  found  be- 
low, at  the  earth’s  surface,  while  the  colder  stratas 
of  air  are  found  above.  As  has  been  shewn,  the 
comparatively  high  temperature  found  immediately 
about  the  earth’s  surface  in  the  temperate  and  torrid 
zones  of  the  globe  is  not  due  to  the  earth’s  “ enor- 
mous coating  of  air.”  On  the  contrary,  the  air  de- 
rives its  temperature  from  the  objects  with  which  it 
is  brought  in  contact;  for  example:  Place  a hot  stove 
in  one  end  of  a large  hall,  the  air  immediately  about 
the  stove  will  partake  of  the  temparature  of  the  stove; 
and  the  surrounding  air  will  be  warmed  and  its  tem- 
perature raised  as  far  as  the  heat  from  the  stove  is 
radiated.  Then  place  a 200  pound  block  of  ice  in  the 
opposite  end  of  the  hall,  and  the  air  immediately 
about  the  ice  will  partake  of  the  temperature  of  the 
ice;  and  the  surrounding  air  will  be  cooled,  and  its 
temperature  lowered  as  far  as  the  cold  from  the  ice 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


81 


is  radiated.  This  disposition  of  the  air  to  partake 
of  the  temperature  of  the  objects  with  which  it  is 
brought  in  contact,  explains  the  singular  fact 
that  the  comparatively  warm  stratas  of  the  earth’s 
atmosphere  are  found  below,  at  and  near  the 
earth’s  surface,  while  the  cold  stratas  are  found 
above.  This,  as  has  been  shown  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  lower  stratas  of  air  derive  their  compara- 
tively high  temperature  from  the  “ hot  sunbeams  ” 
which  are  concentrated  about  the  earth’s  surface. 
This  being  true  it  follows  that  the  upper  stratas  of 
the  atmosphere  derive  their  extremely  low  tempera- 
ture from  some  object  at  its  limits  which  is  intensely 
cold;  and  the  Bible  teaches  us  that  this  is  the  firma- 
ment which  envelops  the  earth  and  its  atmosphere. 
Hence,  the  higher  we  ascend  into  the  upper  regions 
of  the  atmosphere,  the  nearer  we  approach  the  firm- 
ament, and  the  colder  it  gets.  The  presence  of  this 
intensely  cold  firmament,  intervening  between  the 
earth  and  the  sun  explains  the  otherwise  unex- 
plainable fact  cited  by  Prof.  Ball,  that,  instead  of  it 
getting  hotter  as  we  approach  the  sun,  it  actually 
gets  colder.  On  ascending  from  the  earth  in  our 
approach  to  the  far-distant  sun  with  its  intense  heat, 
we  first  approach  the  comparative  near  firmament 
with  its  intense  cold.  Hence,  the  nearer  we  ap- 
proach the  sun  the  colder  it  gets. 

The  disposition  of  the  atmosphere  to  partake  of 
the  temperature  of  any  object  with  which  it  comes 
in  contact,  taken  in  connection  with  the  presence  of 
this  intensely  cold  firmament  at  the  outer  limits  of 
our  atmosphere,  and  the  concentration  of  the  “hot 


82 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


sunbeams”  at  the  earth’s  surface,  explains  the  ap- 
parent reversal  in  this  case,  of  the  rule  that  the 
colder  air  is  found  below,  and  the  hotter  air  above. 

If  the  firmament  was  not  intensely  cold,  and  if 
it  was  not  incapable  of  being  heated  — if  it  had  no 
special  temperature  of  its  own,  but,  like  the  atmos- 
phere, it  would  partake  of  the  temperature  of  any 
object  with  which  it  came  in  contact  — the  hot  sun- 
beams poured  upon  it  in  their  passage  to  the  earth 
throughout  the  ages  since  the  sun  was  formed, 
would  have  heated  it  to  a high  temperature;  this 
heat  from  the  firmament  would  have  been  radiated 
into  the  upper  regions  of  the  atmosphere,  with 
nothing  to  modify  it;  this  excessive  heat  radiated 
from  the  hot  firmament  above,  and  combined  with 
the  heat  radiated  from  the  hot  sunbeams  concentrated 
at  the  earth’s  surface,  would  have  raised  the  tempera- 
ture of  the  atmosphere,  and  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
and  its  waters,  to  such  a height  as  to  render  it  impos- 
sible for  either  plant  or  animal  life  to  exist  on  this 
globe.  But,  as  has  been  shown,  the  firmament  has  a 
peculiarly  low  temperature  of  its  own;  it  is  perhaps 
the  coldest  object  in  the  universe.  The  Mount 
Whitney  observations  estimate  the  temperature  of 
space,  which  is  the  heaven,  at  450°  below  zero,  and 
it  is  incapable  of  being  heated.  Its  intense  cold 
lowers  to  below  the  freezing  point,  the  immense  vol- 
ume of  the  earth’s  atmosphere  down  to  within  about 
two  miles  of  the  earth’s  surface,  where  its  cold  is 
modified  by  the  heat  which  is  radiated  from  the  hot 
sunbeams  concentrated  at  the  surface  of  the  earth. 
The  presence  of  this  immense  volume  of  cold  air 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


83 


above,  contributes  largely  to  render  wholesome  the 
air  we  breathe;  a greater  or  less  amount  of  the  cold 
air  from  above  is  continually  being  borne  down  into 
the  warm  stratas  of  air  below,  which  it  displaces; 
this  cold  air  is  in  its  turn  warmed  by  the  hot  sun- 
beams, while  the  warm  air  which  it  displaces  is 
forced  out  into  the  upper  regions  of  frost  where  it  is 
cooled  and  purified,  and  in  the  course  of  time  will 
return  to  the  earth,  cool  and  pure.  This  process  by 
which  the  lower  stratas  of  the  earth’s  atmosphere 
are  purified,  and  its  proper  temperature  maintained 
throughout  the  different  seasons,  contributes  largely 
to  the  health  and  comfort  of  both  man  and  the 
animals. 

Though  we  are  opposed  to  the  theory  that  the 
earth  was  formerly  a molten  mass,  it  seems  reason- 
able to  suppose,  and  there  is  much  to  indicate,  that 
in  the  movement  of  the  enormous  masses  of  matter 
which  were  concentrated  in  the  earth,  and  its  atmos- 
phere, and  the  firmament,  there  was  an  immense 
amount  of  heat  generated;  and  that  the  entire  volume 
of  the  earth’s  atmosphere  reached  a higher  tempera- 
ture at  that  early  period  than  it  has  since  attained, 
under  the  influence  of  the  sun’s  heat.  This  being- 
true,  it  follows  that  in  the  early  history  of  our  globe, 
the  firmament  performed  a most  important  work  in 
cooling  and  purifying  the  atmosphere,  and  thus  hast- 
ened the  preparation  of  the  earth  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  plant  and  animal  life.  This  cooling  process 
began,  of  course,  at  the  outer  limits  of  the  atmos- 
phere, at  a distance  of  perhaps  several  hundred  miles 
from  the  earth’s  surface,  and  was  necessarily  very 


84 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


gradual.  Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  we  are  now  dis- 
cussing a period  in  the  world’s  history  prior  to  the 
formation  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars;  and  that  in 
the  movement  of  these  great  masses  of  matter  which 
were  concentrated  in  the  celestial  bodies,  an  im- 
mense amount  of  heat  was  generated,  and  that 
doubtless  a greater  or  less  amount  of  this  heat  was 
radiated  to  the  earth,  thus  counteracting  to  some  ex- 
tent the  influence  which  the  firmament  was  exerting 
upon  the  atmosphere  to  lower  its  temperature. 

The  cooling  of  this  immense  mass  of  heated, 
imprisoned  air  would  necessarily  be  a very  slow  pro- 
cess, and  even  under  the  most  favorable  conditions 
would  require  ages  for  its  accomplishment;  the  cool- 
ing of  the  entire  mass  was  never  completed;  it  is 
evident  that  it  was  not  God’s  intention  that  it  should 
be,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  while  this  cooling  process 
was  going  on,  vegetation  was  introduced  upon  the 
earth.  Had  nothing  interposed  to  counteract  the  in- 
fluence of  the  firmament,  the  temperature  of  the  entire 
volume  of  the  earth’s  atmosphere  would  have  been 
lowered  below  the  freezing  point,  as  the  great  bulk 
of  it  is  to-day,  and  the  surface  of  the  earth  and  its 
waters  would  have  been  covered  with  a sheet  of  ice; 
and  the  vegetation  of  the  earth  would  have  been  ut- 
terly destroyed.  This  we  know  never  occurred;  on 
the  contrary,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  the  high 
temperature  and  general  atmospheric  conditions  so 
essential  to  the  growth  of  plants,  prevailed  over  the 
entire  globe.  We  shall  show  that  during  this  period, 
known  as  the  Carboniferous  Age , which  existed  long 
prior  to  the  formation  of  the  sun,  the  earth  pro- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


85 


duced  and  maintained  a considerable  amount  of 
vegetation. 

We  shall  also  show  that  it  was  not  until  the  lat- 
ter part  of  the  Carboniferous  Age  in  what  is  known 
as  the  “ Permian  Period  ” of  that  age,  that  the  sun, 
moon,  and  stars  were  formed,  and  the  seasons  estab- 
lished; and  the  beneficent  influences  which  God  de- 
signed that  the  celestial  bodies  should  exert  upon 
the  earth  and  its  phenomena  began  to  be  expressed. 
After  these  events  the  chilling  influence  of  the  firm- 
ament upon  the  lower  stratas  of  the  atmosphere  was 
counteracted  by  the  concentration  of  the  hot  sun- 
beams upon  the  earth’s  surface,  and  the  perpetua- 
tion of  the  plant  and  animal  life  of  our  globe  was 
assured.  Thus,  it  is  shown  that,  in  addition  to  its 
original  office  of  the  separator  between  the  celestial 
and  the  terrestrial  waters,  the  firmament  or  heaven 
discharges  other  important  offices  in  God’s  plan  of 
creation,  from  which  man  is  largely  the  beneficiary. 

For  many  centuries  the  modern  world  has  been 
deceived  and  misled  by  the  speculations  of  atheists 
and  infidels  who  have  vainly  attempted  to  devise  a 
theory  that  will  cover  all  the  phenomena  of  the  uni- 
verse and  explain  its  existence  as  the  result  of 
“natural  causes”  working  automatically  and  with- 
out design  to  accomplish  their  formation;  nothing 
is  so  absurd  to  these  theorists  as  the  admission  that 
the  universe  is  but  the  expression  of  Divine  intelli- 
gence; nothing  to  them  is  so  repulsive  as  the  belief 
in  a personal  God — the  Creator  of  the  heaven  and 
the  earth.  Hence,  we  should  not  be  surprised  that 
the  firmament  occupies  no  place  in  their  theories, 


86 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


since  its  origin  is  alone  traceable  to  the  highest  in- 
telligence and  the  most  far-reaching  design.  Strange 
as  it  may  seem,  it  is  nevertheless  a deplorable  fact 
that  the  great  bulk  of  those  who  profess  belief  in  a 
personal  God,  most  readily  accept  without  question 
these  antiscriptural  theories  which  deny  the  exist- 
ence of  God.  Under  the  demoralizing  influences  of 
the  unblushing  atheism  and  infidelity  which  charac- 
terize the  age  in  which  we  live,  the  firmament  has 
so  long  been  ignored  that  its  very  existence  and  the 
beneficent  purposes  for  which  it  was  designed  is  lost 
sight  of.  But  this  was  not  the  case  in  the  earlier 
ages;  the  ancients  recognized  the  reality  of  the 
firmament  and  appreciated  its  grandeur,  its  beauty, 
and  its  utility;  and  those  of  the  inspired  authors, 
Moses,  David,  and  Daniel,  make  special  mention  of 
it  in  their  writings.  This  superb,  transparent  struct- 
ure which  allows  heat  and  light  to  penetrate  it  while 
declining  to  extend  this  privilege  to  air  and  water,  is 
an  ever  active  factor  in  the  universe  which  must  be 
considered;  and  we  feel  assured  that  when  this  is 
done  our  present  astronomical  views  will  be  ver}T 
materially  modified,  to  say  the  least  of  it. 

While  the  sciences  are  powerless  to  aid  us  in 
determining  the  time  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
firmament  was  formed,  they  furnish,  as  has  been 
shown,  the  most  positive  proof  of  its  reality ; and 
nothing  is  more  clearly  taught  by  the  sciences  than 
that  the  earth,  and  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  are  not 
situated  in  empty  space.  The  sciences  not  only  ac- 
quaint us  with  the  fact  that  the  firmament  has  a 
temperature  that  is  extremely  low,  but,  as  we  shall 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


87 


hereafter  show,  they  enable  us  to  determine  the  ma- 
terial of  which  the  firmament  or  heaven  is  composed. 

Several  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  inspired 
authors  in  referring  to  the  Creation,  speak  of  God’s 
having  “stretched  out  the  heavens;”  and  they  refer 
to  God  as  he  who  “stretchiest  out  the  heavens;”  for 
example,  Isaiah  says:  “Thus  saith  God  the  Lord,  He 
that  created  the  heavens,  and  stretched  them  out.” 
(Is.  xl,  5).  “Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  Holy  one  of 
Israel  * * * I have  made  the  earth,  and  created 

man  upon  it:  I,  even  my  hands  have  stretched  out 
the  heavens,  and  all  their  hosts  have  I commanded.” 
(Is.  xlv,  11,  12).  Jeremiah  says  of  God:  “He  hath 
made  the  earth  by  His  power,  He  hath  established 
the  world  by  His  wisdom,  and  hath  stretched  out 
the  heavens  by  his  discretion.”  (Jer.  x,  12;  see  also 
Jer.  li,  15).  Isaiah  sa}rs  of  God:  “It  is  He  that  sit- 
teth  upon  the  circle  of  the  earth,  and  the  inhabitants 
thereof  are  as  grasshoppers;  that  stretcheth  out  the 
heavens  as  a curtain,  and  spreadeth  them  out  as  a 
tent  to  dwell  in.”  (Is.  xl,  22).  David  says:  “Bless 
the  Lord,  O my  soul.  * * Who  coverest  thyself 

with  light  as  with  a garment:  Who  stretchest  out 
the  heavens  like  a curtain.”  (Ps.  civ,  1,  2).  The 
references  of  the  inspired  authors  to  the  heavens  in 
the  Creation,  as  something  that  was  stretched  out 
like  a “ curtain,”  conveys  much  the  same  idea  of  the 
heavens  as  that  of  John,  in  his  description  of  the 
destruction  of  the  universe,  in  which  he  says:  “And 
the  heaven  departed  as  a scroll  when  it  is  rolled 
together.”  (Rev.  vi,  14) . 

These  utterances  of  the  inspired  authors  show 


88 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


that,  when  God  had  completed  the  firmament  or 
heaven,  which  He  made  in  the  midst  of  the  waters 
to  separate  the  celestial  waters  from  the  terrestrial 
waters,  He  “stretched  out”  or  extended  the  firma- 
ment or  heaven  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  material 
universe.  This  teaching  is  sustained  by  that  of  the 
Mosaic  Record  in  describing  the  work  of  the  fourth 
creative  day,  as  shown  by  the  following:  “And  God 
said,  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven 
to  divide  the  day  from  the  night.”  * * * “And 

let  them  be  for  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  to 
give  light  upon  the  earth.  * * * And  God  made 

two  great  lights;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day, 
and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night;  He  made  the 
stars  also.  And  God  set  them  in  the  firmament  of 
heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth.”  (Gen.  i,  14, 
15,  16,  17). 

Further  evidence  that  God  “stretched  out,”  or 
extended  the  original  firmament  to  the  limits  of  the 
universe,  is  found  in  the  references  made  to  the 
“open  firmament  of  heaven.”  In  describing  the 
work  of  the  fifth  creative  day,  a part  of  the  animals 
formed  on  that  day  are  described  as  “ fowl  that  may 
fly  above  the  earth  in  the  open  firmament  of 
heaven.”  (Gen.  i,  20).  Hence,  they  are  described 
throughout  the  Bible  as  “the  fowls  of  heaven.”  It 
is  plain  that  “the  open  firmament  of  heaven”  in 
which  “the  fowl  may  fly,”  is  that  immense  space  in- 
tervening between  the  firmament  or  heaven  and  the 
earth,  and  in  which  the  atmosphere  is  situated.  This 
term,  “the  open  firmament  of  heaven,”  is  a compar- 
ative term,  and  indicates  that  inasmuch  as  there  is 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


89 


an  “open  firmament  or  heaven”  beneath,  or  within 
the  original  firmament,  that  above,  or  beyond  it, 
there  is  no  “open  firmament  of  heaven” — no  empty 
space — but  a closed  firmament  or  heaven,  in  which 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  are  placed.  Hence,  they 
are  described  as  “lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven.” 
{Gen.  i,  14,  15,  etc.).  And  also  “the  hosts  of 
heaven.”  ( Deut . iv,  19;  Deut.  xvii,  3,  etc.). 

We  are  thus  plainly  taught  that  the  heavens 
and  the  luminaries  — the  sun,  moon,  and  stars, — are 
different  formations;  that  they  were  made  at  different 
periods  of  time,  and  were  designed  for  different  pur- 
poses; and  the  sciences  teach  us  that  they  are  not 
even  composed  of  the  same  materials.  The  heavens 
are  formations  as  distinct  from  the  luminaries,  as  the 
luminaries  are  from  the  earth.  Hence,  we  but  con- 
fuse ourselves  when  we  confuse  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars  with  the  heavens  in  which  God  placed  them. 

Let  us  now  compare  the  teachings  of  the  Bible 
with  those  of  the  sciences  as  to  the  situation  of  the 
heavens,  and  that  of  the  luminaries,  and  the  rela- 
tions which  the  luminaries  and  the  heavens  sustain 
to  each  other,  and  to  the  earth.  After  reviewing  sev- 
eral theories  those  distinguished  English  writers,  Mr. 
H.  W.  Bristow  and  Mr.  Robert  Brown,  in  their  re- 
vised edition  of  Figuier’s  World  Before  the  Deluge, 
says:  “The  school  of  philosophy  considered  to  be 
the  most  advanced  in  modern  science,  has  yet  an- 
other view  of  cosmogony,  of  which  we  venture  to 
give  a brief  outline.  Space  is  infinite,  says  the  ex- 
ponent of  this  system,*  for  wherever  in  imagination 

* “Professor  Tyndall,  in  Fortnightly  Review." 


90 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


we  erect  a boundary,  we  are  compelled  to  think  of 
space  as  existing  beyond  it.  The  starry  heavens 
proclaim  that  it  is  not  entirely  void;  but  the  ques- 
tion remains,  are  the  vast  regions  which  surround 
the  stars,  and  across  which  light  is  propagated,  abso- 
lutely empty?  No!  Modern  science,  while  it  rejects 
the  notion  of  the  luminiferous  particles  of  the  old 
philosophy,  has  cogent  proofs  of  the  existence  of  a 
luminiferous  ether  with  definite  mechanical  prop- 
erties. It  is  infinitely  more  attenuated,  but  more 
solid  than  gas.  It  resembles  jelly  rather  than  air, 
and  if  not  co-extensive  with  space,  it  extends  as  far 
as  the  most  distant  star  the  telescope  reveals  to  us; 
it  is  the  vehicle  of  their  light  in  fact;  it  takes  up 
their  molecular  tremors  and  conveys  them  with  in- 
conceivable rapidity  to  our  organs  of  vision.  The 
splendor  of  the  firmament  at  night  is  due  to  this 
vibration.  If  this  ether  has  a boundary,  masses  of 
ponderable  matter  may  exist  beyond  it,  but  they 
could  emit  no  light.  Dark  suns  ma3T  burn  there, 
metals  may  be  heated  to  fusion  in  invisible  furnaces, 
planets  may  be  molten  amid  intense  darkness;  for 
the  loss  of  heat  being  simply  the  abstraction  of 
molecular  motion  by  the  ether,  where  this  medium 
is  absent  no  cooling  could  take  place. 

“This,  however  does  not  concern  us;  as  far  as 
our  knowledge  of  space  extends,  we  are  to  conceive 
of  it  as  the  holder  of  this  luminiferous  ether,  through 
which  the  fixed  stars  are  interspersed  at  enormous 
distances  apart.”  ( The  World,  Before  the  Deluge , pp. 
24,  25). 

We  have  now  before  us  the  teachings  of  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


91 


Bible  and  those  of  the  most  advanced  school  of 
modern  science  expressed  in  their  own  language;  we 
are  thus  enabled  to  determine  whether  there  is  that 
sharp  conflict  between  the  teachings  of  scripture 
and  those  of  the  sciences  of  which  we  hear  so  much. 
And  it  should  be  unnecessary  for  us  to  state  that  in 
presenting  the  results  of  Professor  Tyndall’s  investi- 
gations, we  are  not  employing  the  aid  of  one  who 
was  in  the  least  partial  to  the  Bible;  on  the  contrary, 
as  is  well  known,  Professor  Tyndall  was  one  of  the 
ablest,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  open,  pronounced 
opponents  of  the  Bible. 

As  has  been  shown,  the  Bible  teaches  that  the 
luminaries  are  not  situated  in  empty  space.  As 
shown  by  the  utterances  of  Professor  Tyndall,  mod- 
ern science  teaches  that  the  luminaries  are  not  situ- 
ated in  empty  space. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  God  made  the  luminaries 
and  placed  them  in  the  firmament  of  heaven,  a 
formation  which  He  had  prepared  for  their  recep- 
tion. 

Modern  science  teaches  that  a “ luminiferous 
ether,”  “ infinitely  more  attenuated,  but  more  solid 
than  gas,”  a substance  which  “ resembles  jelly,  rather 
than  air,”  surrounds  the  remotest  “ star  the  telescope 
reveals  to  us.” 

The  Bible  teaches  that  God  made  the  luminaries 
and  placed  ‘‘them  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  to 
give  light  upon  the  earth.”  Thus  we  are  plainly 
taught  that  it  is  not  to  the  luminaries  alone,  but  to 
this  combination  of  the  luminaries , and  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven  in  which  God  placed  them,  that  the 


92 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


earth  is  indebted  for  its  light.  This  being  true,  it 
follows  that  if  either  the  luminaries  or  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven,  was  absent,  the  earth  would  be  en- 
veloped in  darkness.  The  plan  of  Creation  requires 
the  combination  of  the  luminaries,  and  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven,  in  which  God  placed  them,  to  give 
light  upon  the  earth. 

Modern  science  teaches  that  while  the  lumina- 
ries produce  the  light,  this  ether,  through  its  vibra- 
tions, is  the  vehicle  by  which  their  light  is  transmit- 
ted, “ with  inconceivable  rapidity  to  our  organs  of 
vision.”  Thus  we  are  taught  that  it  is  not  to  the  lumi- 
naries alone,  but  to  this  combination  of  the  lumi- 
naries, and  the  ether  which  surrounds  them,  that 
the  earth  is  indebted  for  its  light.  This  being  true, 
it  follows  that  if  either  the  luminaries  or  the  ether 
which  surrounds  them  was  absent,  the  earth  would 
be  enveloped  in  darkness.  Modern  science  requires 
the  combination  of  the  luminaries  and  the  ether 
which  surrounds  them  to  give  light  upon  the  earth. 

Thus,  instead  of  a conflict  between  the  scrip- 
tures and  the  sciences  upon  these  great  subjects,  we 
find  that  they  are  in  absolute  harmony;  the  sciences 
not  only  prove  the  reality  of  the  “ firmament  of 
heaven,”  but  they  acquaint  us  with  the  fact  that  it 
is  composed  of  ether;  and  inasmuch  as  this  jelly-like 
substance  extends  throughout  space  and  surrounds 
every  star,  it  necessarily  surrounds  the  earth  which 
is  in  the  midst  of  the  stars.  The  masses  of  this  ether 
which  mark  the  boundaries  of  our  atmosphere,  per- 
mit the  rays  of  heat  and  light  to  penetrate  it  without 
affecting  its  extremely  low  temperature;  but  being 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


93 


impervious  to  air  and  water,  it  holds  the  earth’s 
water  and  its  atmosphere  to  the  earth;  it  evidently 
discharges  the  same  office  for  every  other  planet  in 
the  universe;  it  is  this  great  firmament  of  ether 
which  surrounds  every  star,  that  holds  the  waters  of 
Mars  to  Mars;  and  the  clouds  and  vapors  of  Jupiter 
to  Jupiter,  and  so  on. 

Had  Professor  Tyndall  and  his  followers  obeyed 
the  Saviour’s  command,  “ Search  the  scriptures,” 
they  might  have  discovered  the  perfect  harmony 
which  really  exists  between  the  scriptures  and  the 
sciences;  and  their  unfair  criticisms  and  their  unjust 
assaults  upon  the  Bible  would  not  have  been  made. 
No  theory  which  proposes  to  attribute  the  existence 
of  the  phenomena  of  the  universe  to  “ natural 
causes,”  can  explain  the  origin  of  this  great  firma- 
ment of  ether;  in  its  silent  grandeur  it  presents  the 
most  crushing  proofs  of  the  falsity  of  all  such  theo- 
ries. The  Bible'  alone  explains  the  origin  of  this 
wonderful  formation.  Hence,  apparently  infinite  in 
its  length  and  breadth,  and  in  its  height  and  depth; 
unsurpassed  in  all  inanimate  nature,  in  point  of 
utility;  and  peerless  in  its  grandeur  and  its  beauty: 
“The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
firmament  showeth  His  handiwork.” 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Nebular  Theory. 

There  are  only  two  schools  of  learning  which 
propose  to  explain  the  existence  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  with  all  their  phenomena.  These  are  (1) 
the  Bible  school  of  Divine  Creation ; (2)  the  Atheis- 
tic school  of  Evolution,  or  Natural  Development. 
This  is  admitted  by  Professor  Haeckel,  the  great 
German  naturalist,  upon  whom  the  mantle  of  author- 
ity in  the  evolution  world  descended  at  the  death  of 
Darwin.  In  discussing  the  origin  of  plant  and  ani- 
mal life,  Professor  Haeckel  says : 

“As  is  now  very  generally  acknowledged,  both 
by  the  adherents  of  and  the  opponents  to  the  theory 
of  descent,  the  choice  in  the  matter  of  the  origin  of 
the  human  race  lies  between  two  radically  different 
assumptions:  We  must  either  accustom  ourselves 
to  the  idea  that  the  various  species  of  animals  and 
plants,  man  included,  originated  independently  of 
each  other,  by  the  supernatural  process  of  a Divine 
‘ creation,’  which  as  such  is  entirely  removed  from 
the  sphere  of  scientific  observation;  or,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  accept  the  theory  of  descent  in  its  entirety, 
and  trace  the  human  race,  equally  with  the  various 
plant  and  animal  species,  from  an  entirely  simple 
primeval  parent  form.  Between  these  two  assump- 

94 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


95 


tions  there  is  no  third  course.”  ( The  Evolution  of 
Man,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  36,  37). 

The  School  of  Creation  as  presented  by  the 
Bible,  teaches  that  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  with 
all  their  phenomena,  is  the  product  of  Divine  creation. 
Hence,  they  are  artificial  — the  product  of  Divine 
art  — and  the  laws  which  govern  them  are  God’s 
laws.  In  direct  opposition  to  this  scriptural  school, 
the  School  of  Atheism  teaches  that  the  heaven  and 
the  earth,  with  all  their  phenomena,  is  the  result  of 
natural  causes,  working  automatically,  and  of  course 
without  design,  to  accomplish  their  formation ; and 
that  the  laws  which  govern  them  are  natural  laws. 

As  shown  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  volume, 
the  School  of  Creation  is  by  far  the  most  ancient  of 
these  ancient  schools  of  learning ; and  its  great 
truths  were  taught  by  the  Creator  to  our  first  parents 
in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and  were  transmitted  by 
Adam  to  his  descendants  in  the  “book  of  precepts” 
which  God  delivered  to  him.  In  the  following  pages 
we  shall  combat  the  theory  of  development  at  every 
point;  we  shall  show  that  in  addition  to  its  being 
antiscriptural,  it  is  irrational  and  unscientific ; we 
shall  show  that  so  far  from  having  progressed,  man 
has  not  even  held  his  own.  As  a matter  of  fact  we 
of  modern  times  are  just  emerging  from  the  “ Dark 
Ages,”  into  which  God  in  His  wrath  and  disgust 
plunged  the  whole  world  of  mankind  after  the  cruci- 
fixion of  the  Saviour,  and  in  which  all  knowledge  of 
the  arts  and  sciences  was  practically  lost,  and  in 
which  ignorance  and  superstition  ruled  supreme. 
Our  egotism  leads  us  into  the  error  of  supposing 


96 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


that  we  are  the  most  intellectual,  learned,  and  accom- 
plished people  that  ever  lived  upon  the  earth ; and 
we  ignore  the  evidence  which  explorers  among 
ancient  ruins  are  continually  discovering  of  the  high 
intellectuality,  learning,  and  culture  of  the  ancients; 
we  disregard  the  facts  established  by  this  mass  of 
evidence  that  nation  after  nation  in  the  past,  and 
upon  every  continent  of  the  earth,  has  ascended  to 
the  loftiest  positions  of  knowledge  and  refinement, 
and  then  descended  by  some  demoralizing  course 
which  led  to  individual  and  national  degeneracy,  and 
finally  consigned  their  descendants  to  barbarism  and 
savagery;  laid  their  superb  civilizations  in  ruins; 
and  the  greater  part,  if  not  all,  of  their  knowledge 
acquired  through  ages  of  investigation  was  lost  to 
the  world.  We  also  disregard  the  fact  that  our  great 
achievements  in  the  realms  of  art  and  science  have 
all  been  accomplished  in  the  last  few  centuries;  for 
example:  The  great  law  of  gravitation,  a knowledge 
of  which  is  so  essential  to  the  astronomer,  was  not 
understood  by  the  moderns  until  explained  and 
given  to  the  world  by  Newton  in  A.  D.  1687.  The 
modern  world  was  in  ignorance  of  the  existence  of 
the  planet  Uranus  until  Herschel  discovered  it  in 
1781.  The  great  planet  Neptune  was  discovered 
simultaneously  in  1846  by  the  mathematicians,  Le 
Verrier  of  France  and  Adams  of  England.  The 
satellites  of  the  planets,  and  many  of  the  laws  gov- 
erning the  celestial  bodies,  are  recent  discoveries  by 
modern  astronomers,  though  doubtless  known  to  the 
ancients.  The  ancients  were  aware  that  the  earth  is 
a globe;  but  this  knowledge  was  lost  to  the  world, 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


97 


and  at  the  time  of  Bruno,  A.  D.  1600,  the  Catholic 
church,  which  claimed  about  all  the  learning  and 
authority  in  Europe  at  that  time,  taught  that  the 
earth  was  a plane.  The  ancients  possessed  and  lost 
the  telescope,  one  of  the  most  essential  instruments 
in  studying  the  heavens;  the  modern  telescope  was 
first  made  in  Holland  in  A.  D.  1608;  it  was  improved 
upon  by  Galileo  in  1610,  and  successive  improve- 
ments have  brought  it  to  its  present  state  of  perfec- 
tion. The  same  is  true  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  our 
modern  inventions  and  discoveries;  they  are  merely 
reproductions.  A knowledge  of  these  things  was  as 
essential  to  the  ancients  as  to  the  moderns;  and  the 
same  lofty  grade  of  intellect  which  produced  them  in 
modern  times  produced  them  in  ancient  times.  All 
the  facts  indicate  that  the  ancients  acquired  and  lost 
a knowledge  of  astronomy  as  well  as  of  other  sub- 
jects, that  we,  who  are  just  emerging  from  the  “ Dark 
Ages,”  have  not  yet  attained  to. 

In  discussing  the  antiquity  of  the  science  of 
astronomy,  Professor  Ball  says: 

“The  history  of  astronomy  is,  in  one  respect, 
only  like  many  other  histories.  The  earliest  part  of 
it  is  completely  and  hopelessly  lost.  The  stars  had 
been  studied,  and  some  great  astronomical  discov- 
eries had  been  made,  untold  ages  before  those  to 
which  our  earliest  historical  records  extend.  For 
example,  the  observation  of  the  apparent  movement 
of  the  sun,  and  the  discrimination  between  the 
planets  and  the  fixed  stars,  are  both  to  be  classed 
among  the  discoveries  of  pre-historic  ages.  Nor  is 
it  to  be  said  that  these  achievements  related  to  mat- 


98 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


ters  of  an  obvious  character.  * * The  patient  ob- 

servations of  the  early  astronomers  enabled  the  sun’s 
track  through  the  heavens  to  be  ascertained,  and  it 
was  found  that  in  its  circuit  amid  the  stars  and  con- 
stellations our  luminary  invariably  followed  the  same 
path.  This  is  called  the  ecliptic , and  the  constella- 
tions through  which  it  passes  form  a belt  around  the 
heavens  known  as  the  zodiac.  It  was  anciently  di- 
vided into  twelve  equal  portions  or  ‘signs,’  so  that 
the  stages  on  the  sun’s  great  journey  could  be  con- 
veniently indicated.  The  duration  of  the  year,  or 
the  period  required  by  the  sun  to  run  its  course 
through  the  heavens,  seems  to  have  been  first  as- 
certained by  astronomers  whose  names  are  unknown. 
The  skill  of  the  early  Oriental  geometers  was  further 
evidenced  by  their  determination  of  the  position  of 
the  ecliptic  with  regard  to  the  equator,  and  by  their 
success  in  the  measurement  of  the  angle  between 
these  two  important  circles  on  the  heavens.  * ::: 

But  we  are  far  from  having  exhausted  the  list  of 
great  discoveries  which  have  come  down  from  an 
unknown  antiquity.  Correct  explanations  had  been 
given  of  the  striking  phenomenon  of  a lunar  eclipse, 
in  which  the  brilliant  surface  is  plunged  temporarily 
into  darkness,  and  also  of  the  still  more  imposing 
spectacle  of  a solar  eclipse,  in  which  the  sun  himself 
undergoes  a partial  or  even  a total  obscuration. 
Then,  too,  the  acuteness  of  the  early  astronomers 
had  detected  the  five  wandering  stars  or  planets; 
they  had  traced  the  movements  of  Mercury,  and 
Venus,  Mars,  Jupiter,  and  Saturn.  They  had  ob- 
served with  awe  the  various  configurations  of  these 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


99 


planets.  * * * At  length  a certain  order  was 

perceived  to  govern  the  apparently  capricious  move- 
ments of  the  planets.  It  was  found  that  they  obeyed 
certain  laws.”  {Ibid,  pp.  2,  5,  6) . 

In  discussing  the  ancient  Egyptians,  Mr.  Good- 
rich says:  “The  signs  of  the  zodiac  were  certainly 
in  use  among  the  Egyptians  1722  years  before  Christ. 
One  of  the  learned  men  of  our  day,  who  for  fifty 
years  labored  to  decipher  the  hieroglyphics  of  the 
ancients,  found  upon  a mummy-case  in  the  British 
Museum  a delineation  of  the  signs  of  the  zodiac,  and 
the  position  of  the  planets;  the  date  to  which  they 
pointed  was  the  autumnal  equinox  of  the  year  1722 
B.  C.  Professor  Mitchell,  to  whom  the  fact  was 
communicated,  employed  his  assistants  to  ascertain 
the  exact  position  of  the  heavenly  bodies  belonging 
to  our  solar  system  on  the  equinox  of  that  year. 
This  was  done,  and  a diagram  furnished  by  parties 
ignorant  of  his  object,  which  showed  that  on  the  7th 
of  October,  1722  B.  C.,  the  moon  and  planets  occu- 
pied the  exact  point  in  the  heavens  marked  upon  the 
coffin  in  the  British  Museum.”  {Columbus,  p.  22) . 

Mr.  Donnelly  says:  “The  knowledge  of  the 
ancients  as  to  astronomy  was  great  and  accurate. 
Callisthenes,  who  accompanied  Alexander  the  Great 
to  Babylon,  sent  to  Aristotle  a series  of  Chaldean 
astronomical  observations  which  he  found  preserved 
there,  recorded  on  tablets  of  baked  clay,  and  extend- 
ing back  as  far  as  2234  B.  C.  Humbolt  says:  ‘The 
Chaldeans  knew  the  mean  motions  of  the  moon  with 
an  exactness  which  induced  the  Greek  astronomers 
to  use  their  calculations  for  the  foundation  of  a 


100 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


lunar  theory.’  The  Chaldeans  knew  the  true  nature 
of  comets,  and  could  foretell  their  reappearance.  ‘ A 
lens  of  considerable  power  was  found  in  the  ruins  of 
Babylon;  it  was  an  inch  and  a half  in  diameter  and 
nine-tenths  of  an  inch  thick.’  ( Layard’s  Nineveh 
and  Babylon , pp.  16,  17).  Nero  used  optical  glasses 
when  he  watched  the  fights  of  the  gladiators;  they 
are  supposed  to  have  come  from  Egypt  and  the  east. 
Plutarch  speaks  of  optical  instruments  used  by 
Archimedes  ‘to  manifest  to  the  eye  the  largeness  of 
the  sun.’  ‘There  are  actual  astronomical  calcula- 
tions in  existence,  with  calendars  formed  upon  them, 
which  eminent  astronomers  of  England  and  France 
admit  to  be  genuine  and  true,  and  which  cany  back 
the  antiquity  of  the  science  of  astronomy,  together 
with  the  constellations,  to  within  a few  years  of  the 
Deluge,  even  on  the  longer  chronology  of  the  Septua- 
gint.’  ( The  Miracle  in  Stone,  p.  142).  Josephus 
attributes  the  invention  of  the  constellations  to  the 
family  of  the  antediluvian  Seth,  the  son  of  Adam, 
while  Origin  affirms  that  it  was  asserted  in  the  Book 
of  Enoch  that  in  the  time  of  that  Patriarch  the  con- 
stellations were  already  divided  and  named.  (. At- 
lantis, pp.  453,  454) . 

Thus  it  is  shown  that  so  far  from  astronomy 
being  a modern,  it  is  one  of  the  most  ancient 
of  the  sciences;  it  was  not  only  familiar  to 
the  ancients  of  postdiluvian  times,  but  the  ante- 
diluvians were  familiar  with  it.  Not  only  were 
the  constellations  divided  and  named  in  the  time  of 
Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam,  but  the  11  invention 
of  the  constellations  ” is  accredited  to  the  family  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


101 


Seth,  the  third  son  of  Adam.  These  incidents  fur- 
nish additional  proof  that  God  revealed  to  Adam  a 
knowledge  of  the  great  events  of  Creation,  just  as 
He  afterwards  revealed  them  to  Moses;  they  also  go 
far  to  prove  that  just  as  God  inspired  Moses  to  write 
a narrative  of  the  Creation  for  the  benefit  of  the 
moderns,  so  did  He  inspire  Adam  to  write  a narra- 
tive of  the  Creation  for  the  benefit  of  the  ancients. 
The  knowledge  of  the  heavens,  the  waters  above  the 
heavens,  and  the  celestial  bodies  which  David  dis- 
played, was  derived  from  the  narrative  of  Creation 
which  God  inspired  Moses  to  write;  while  the  knowl- 
edge of  astronomy  which  the  immediate  descendants 
of  Adam  displayed  was  derived  from  the  account  of 
the  Creation  which  God  inspired  Adam  to  write.  That 
intimate  knowledge  of  the  phenomena  of  the  heav- 
ens, which  enabled  Seth  to  divide  and  name  the  con- 
stellations, could  only  have  been  acquired  at  that 
early  period  from  Adam’s  inspired  book;  and  the 
distinction  which  Seth  derived  from  his  acceptance 
of  it,  has  survived  the  ravages  of  time,  and  has 
handed  his  name  down  to  us  from  a remote  antiquity 
as  the  earliest,  and  perhaps  the  most  accomplished 
astronomer  the  world  has  ever  known.  The  modern 
world  should  have  profited  by  Seth’s  example,  and 
should  have  accepted  the  word  of  God  as  David  did; 
but  instead  of  this,  we  find  professed  Christians 
either  ignoring  the  Mosaic  Record,  or  engaged  in 
vain  attempts  to  twist  its  utterances  into  some 
semblance  of  harmony  with  the  speculations  of  in- 
fidels and  atheists. 

Prominent  among  the  antiscriptural  theories  of 


102 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


modern  time,  is  that  invented  by  the  French  infidel, 
La  Place,  and  commonly  known  as  the  “ Nebular 
Hypothesis.”  This  theory  professes  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  earth  and  the  celestial  bodies.  The 
Nebular  Theory  combined  with  the  Theory  of  De- 
scent, which  attributes  the  origin  of  plant  and  ani- 
mal life  to  spontaneous  generation,  form  what  is 
termed  the  theory  of  Evolution  or  the  theory  of  De- 
velopment, which  thrusts  |God  aside,  denies  the 
existence  of  an  intelligent  Creator,  repudiates  the 
Bible,  and  accredits  the  phenomena  of  the  universe 
to  natural  causes.  The  Nebular  Theory  is  sustained 
by  the  great  majority  of  scientists.  Strange  as  it  may 
seem  this  antiscriptural  theory  is  advocated,  with 
but  few  exceptions,  by  those  who  profess  to  believe 
the  Bible. 

In  discussing  this  theory,  which  he  warmly  ad- 
vocates, Professor  Guyot  says: 

“ In  the  genesis  of  our  solar  system,  as  explained 
by  the  genius  of  La  Place  and  submitted  by  Stephen 
Alexander  to  exhaustive  calculations,  the  result  of 
which  amounts  almost  to  a demonstration  of  its 
truth,  we  see  how  a family  of  planets  has  been  de- 
tached from  a vast  central  body  which  holds  them 
in  bondage  by  the  power  of  its  mass. 

“ This  last  history,  which  immediately  concerns 
the  earth  as  one  of  the  daughters  of  our  sun,  is  so 
important  in  helping  us  to  understand  the  phases  of 
development  undergone  by  our  globe,  that  it  may 
be  well  to  give  a short  outline  of  the  foundation 
upon  which  it  rests. 

“ 1.  It  is  found  that  the  distances  of  the  orbits 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


103 


of  the  planets  from  the  sun  follow  a nearly  regular 
law,  which  is,  that,  starting  from  the  orbit  of  Mer- 
cury, and  counting  the  place  of  the  asteroids  as  one 
planet,  each  succeeding  orbit  is  about  double  the 
distance  of  the  preceding  one. 

“ 2.  On  the  whole,  the  planets  nearer  the  sun 
are  smaller  than  the  more  distant  ones. 

“ 3.  Their  density  is  increasing  with  their 
nearness  to  the  sun. 

“4.  All  the  planets  and  their  satellites  revolve 
around  the  sun  in  the  same  direction  and  nearly  in 
the  same  plane  as  the  equator  of  the  sun  itself. 

“5.  The  velocity  of  their  revolution  is  dimin- 
ishing with  their  distance  from  the  sun. 

“ 6.  The  rapidity  of  their  rotation  on  their  axis, 
on  the  contrary  is  increasing. 

“ All  these  coincidences  point  to  a common  law 
which  seems  to  indicate  a community  of  origin. 
* * * He  assumed  as  his  starting-point,  the  sun  as  a 
nebulous  star  with  a powerful  nucleus,  revolving  on 
its  axis,  and  when  hot,  gaseous  atmosphere  extended 
beyond  the  limit  of  the  orbit  of  Neptune.  Plunged 
in  the  cold  abysses  of  heaven,  in  which  it  loses  in- 
cessantly, by  radiation,  a part  of  its  heat,  it  cools  and 
contracts;  its  centrifugal  force  increasing  rapidly  at 
the  same  time.  Under  its  action,  the  cool  and  heav- 
ier particles  rush  toward  the  equatorial  parts,  where, 
owing  to  the  continual  contraction  of  the  main  body, 
they  are  soon  left  behind  in  the  shape  of  a ring  sim- 
ilar to  those  which  we  observe  around  Saturn. 

“According  to  the  laws  of  motion,  the  ring  con- 
tinues to  move  with  the  same  velocity  as  the  main 


104 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


body  from  which  it  was  detached.  But  as  the  ring 
itself  shrinks  in  cooling,  its  inner  surface,  receding 
from  the  sun,  begins  to  move  less  rapidly,  while  the 
outside,  approaching  nearer  the  sun,  moves  with 
greater  rapidity.  The  equilibrium  being  thus  dis- 
turbed, the  ring  tends  to  break  up,  and  the  outside, 
gaining  upon  the  inside,  the  whole  is  rolled  up  into  a 
globular  mass  with  a rotary  motion  in  the  same 
direction  as  that  of  the  ring  itself.  The  result  is  a 
planet  revolving  around  the  sun  and  in  the  plane  of 
its  equator.  By  further  contraction  of  the  sun,  the 
same  process  is  repeated  and  new  planets  are  formed. 
They  decrease  in  size  because  the  detached  rings 
grow  less  at  every  step.  They  increase  in  density, 
because  the  later  planets  are  detached  when  the 
density  of  the  sun  is  increased. 

“ The  larger  planets  have  a more  rapid  rotation 
because  they  have  been  contracting  during  a longer 
period  of  time.”  ( Creation , pp.  67,  68,  69,  70;  see 
also  Ennis,  The  Origin  of  the  Stars ; Dawson,  The 
Origin  of  the  World,  etc) . 

Dr.  Patterson,  in  discussing  the  Nebular  Theory, 
says:  “ The  theory  is  contradicted  by  the  densities  of 

the  'planets.  At  the  time  La  Place  constructed  his 
theory,  the  densities  of  the  planets  were  either  un- 
known or  erroneously  valued.  He  constructed  his 
theory  to  suit  these  errors.  Astronomers  are  now 
agreed  as  to  the  error  of  Newton,  and  La  Place,  and 
Kepler,  in  supposing  that  the  densest  bodies  were 
those  nearest  the  sun.  Kepler  declares  ‘ the  sun  to 
be  the  densest  of  all  cosmical  bodies;  because  it 
moves  all  others  which  belong  to  his  system.’ 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


105 


Newton  argues:  ‘The  bodies  of  Venus  and  Mercury 
are  more  ripened  and  condensed,  on  account  of 
the  greater  heat  of  the  sun.  The  more  remote 
planets,  by  want  of  heat,  are  deficient  in  these 
metallic  substances  and  mighty  minerals  with  which 
the  earth  abounds.  Bodies  are  denser  in  proportion 
to  their  nearness  to  the  sun.’ 

“ La  Place  calculated  his  system  accordingly, 
and  made  his  outside  planets,  which  were  first  cast 
off,  light  in  proportion  to  their  distance  from  the 
sun,  while  those  nearest,  which  had  condensed 
most,  were  made  heavy  accordingly.  For  instance, 
he  calculated  the  density  of  Mercury,  to  make  it 
square  with  his  theory,  at  2.585;  which  indeed  was 
a little  less  than  what  was  then  generally  supposed; 
while  it  is  in  reality  now  found  to  be  only  one-half 
of  that,  or  1.234 — a very  little  heavier  than  the 
earth.  The  sun,  which  ought  to  be  the  densest 
body  of  the  system  by  the  theory,  is  actually  much 
lighter  than  the  earth,  and  stands  fifth  in  the  order 
of  densities.  There  is  no  correspondence  whatever 
between  the  distances  and  the  densities  of  the 
planets.  The  actual  order  of  the  solar  system  as  to 
density,  is  given  by  Humbolt  as  follows:  Saturn, 

0.140  of  the  earth’s  density;  Uranus,  0.178;  Nep- 
tune, 0.232;  Jupiter,  0.243;  Sun,  0.252;  Venus, 
0.940;  Mars,  0.958;  Earth,  1;  Mercury,  1.234.* 
Thus  it  appears  that  the  sun  is  but  little  denser  than 
Neptune,  the  outer  planet  of  the  system — exactly 
the  reverse  of  La  Place’s  nebular  hypothesis. 

“This  objection,  of  the  inconsistence  of  densi- 

* Cosmos,  xv,  p.  446. 


106 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


ties,  comes  with  even  greater  force  from  the  comets 
of  our  system.  They  are  by  far  the  most  numerous 
family  we  have.  Kepler  sa}^s  that  there  are  more 
comets  in  the  heavens  than  fishes  in  the  ocean.  At 
any  rate,  astronomers  calculate  their  numbers  within 
our  solar  system  at  two  or  three  millions.  Now 
these,  according  to  the  theory,  should  not  be  within 
the  solar  system  at  all,  nor  within  millions  of  miles 
of  it,  but  away  in  the  outer  margins  of  space  among 
the  nebulse,  since  they  are  lighter  than  vanity. 
Every  comet  which  shows  its  light  head  among 
solid  worlds  mocks  at  the  Nebular  Hypothesis. 

“ The  other  arrangements  of  the  solar  system  were 
found  to  be  equally  at  variance  with  the  demands  of  the 
theory.  The  orbits  of  the  comets,  being  inclined  at 
all  angles  to  the  sun’s  equator,  are  often  out  of  the 
plane  of  his  rotation,  and  fly  right  in  the  face  of  the 
theory.  The  moons  of  Uranus  revolve  in  a direction 
contrary  to  all  the  other  bodies,  and  so  contrary  to 
the  theory.  The  palpable  difference  between  the 
luminosity  of  the  sun  and  of  the  other  bodies,  is  in 
itself  a sufficient  refutation  of  the  theory  which 
would  make  them  all  out  of  the  same  matter  and 
by  the  same  process,  and  moreover  refutes  the 
notion  of  their  common  origin  by  any  mere  mechani- 
cal law,  as  Newton  shows:  ‘The  same  power,  whether 
natural  or  supernatural,  which  placed  the  sun  in  the 
center  of  the. six  primary  planets,  placed  Saturn  in 
the  center  of  the  orb  of  his  five  secondaiy  planets, 
and  the  earth  in  the  center  of  the  moon’s  orbit;  and, 
therefore,  had  this  cause  been  a blind  one,  without 
contrivance  or  design , the  sun  would  have  been  a 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


107 


body  of  the  same  kind  with  Saturn,  Jupiter,  and  the 
earth;  that  is,  without  light  and  heat.  Why  there  is 
one  body  in  our  system  qualified  to  give  light  and 
heat  to  all  the  rest,  I know  no  reason  but  because 
the  author  of  the  system  thought  it  convenient.” 
{Errors  of  Evolution,  pp.  34,  35,  36) . 

Sir  Robert  S.  Ball,  in  discussing  the  Nebular 
Theory,  says:  “Such  is,  in  fact,  the  doctrine  of  the 
origin  of  system  which  has  been  advanced  in  that 
celebrated  speculation  known  as  the  nebular  theory. 
Nor  can  it  ever  be  more  than  a speculation;  it  can 
not  be  established  by  observation,  nor  can  it  be 
proved  by  calculation.  It  is  merely  a conjecture, 
more  or  less  plausible,  but  perhaps  in  some  degree 
necessarily  true,  if  our  present  laws  of  heat,  as  we 
understand  them,  admit  of  the  extreme  application 
here  required,  and  if  also  the  present  order  of  things 
has  reigned  for  sufficient  time  without  the  interven- 
tion of  any  influence  at  present  unknown  to  us.” 
( The  Story  of  the  Heavens,  p.  500) . 

Thus,  this  distinguished  scientist  frankly  asserts 
that  the  Nebular  Theory  is  simply  a speculation;  that 
it  can  never  he  more  than  a speculation ; that  it  cannot 
he  established  by  observation,  nor  can  it  be  proved  by 
calculation ; that  it  is  merely  a conjecture  more  or  less 
plausible.  Yet  we  find  professed  Christians  advo- 
cating this  speculation, — this  mere  conjecture  of  an 
infidel — when  to  do  so  requires  them  to  repudiate 
the  word  of  God;  nothing  is  more  clearly  taught  in 
the  Bible  than  that  the  earth  was  the  first  of  the  great 
bodies  formed;  while  La  Place  “assumed,”  that  the 
sun  was  the  first  of  the  great  bodies  formed;  and 


108 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


that  the  earth  was  formerly  a gaseous  ring  thrown 
off  from  the  sun.  Hence,  Professor  Guyot,  in  advo- 
cating this  theory  refers  to  the  earth  as  “one  of  the 
daughters  of  our  sun.” 

In  discussing  the  Nebular  Theory,  and  the  mo- 
tions of  the  planets,  the  distinguished  astronomer 
Richard  A.  Procter  says: 

“Now,  the  French  astronomer  La  Place  showed 
how  all  these  motions  would  have  resulted  if  the 
solar  system  had  once  been  a great  mass  of  intensely 
hot  vapor  turning  round  and  round  as  upon  an  axis. 
This  whirling  mass  of  vapor  would  contract  as  it 
parted  with  its  heat,  and,  as  it  contracted,  would 
whirl  more  swiftly.  This  increase  of  its  rotating 
movement  would  cause  the  outer  parts  to  be  sepa- 
rated, and  a ring  would  thus  be  thrown  off.  This 
ring  would  eventually  break  up  and  form  a minor 
vapor  mass,  circling  around  the  remainder  of  the  con- 
tracting mass.  Moreover,  La  Place  showed  that  the 
mass  thrown  off  would  rotate  in  the  the  same  direc- 
tion in  which  it  revolved.  Now,  we  have  only-  to 
conceive  this  process  repeated  several  times  as  the 
vapor  mass  continued  to  contract  to  understand  the 
formation  of  the  primary  planets.  We  have  only  to 
suppose  further  that  the  larger  vapor  masses  thrown 
off,  as  supposed,  themselves  contracted  in  the  same 
way,  and  thus  formed  subordinate  systems,  to  under- 
stand the  existence  of  satellite  systems  like  those 
circling  around  Saturn,  Jupiter,  Uranus  and  Nep- 
tune. A ring  such  as  the  ring  of  Asteroids  or  the 
Saturnian  rings  would,  under  exceptional  circum- 
stances, be  formed  instead  of  a planet  or  satellite. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


109 


And  thus  the  main  features  of  the  solar  system  are 
accounted  for. 

“But  this  ingenious  theory  does  not  account 
for  some  peculiarities  which  are  scarcely  less  re- 
markable than  those  upon  which  it  is  based.  In 
particular  it  does  not  account  for  the  strange  dispo- 
sition of  the  masses  of  the  solar  system.  Why 
should  the  inner  family  consist  of  minor  bodies,  in 
the  main  unattended,  while  the  outer  consists  of 
giant  orbs  with  extensive  families  of  satellites?  Why 
should  the  innermost  members  of  the  outer  family 
of  planets  be  the  largest,  while  just  within  there  lies 
the  family  of  asteroids,  not  only  individually  min- 
ute, but  collectively  less  (as  Leverrier  has  proved) 
than  Mars,  or  even  Mercury?  Why  should  the  two 
middle  planets  of  the  inner  family  be  the  largest 
members  of  that  family?  La  Place’s  theory  gives 
no  account  of  these  peculiarities;  nor  perhaps  could 
it  be  insisted  that  these  peculiarities  should  be  ex- 
plained; yet,  if  any  other  theory  should  give  an  ac- 
count of  these  features,  explaining  also  the  features 
which  we  have  seen  accounted  for,  then  such  theory 
would  have  a decided  advantage  over  La  Place’s.  It 
is  to  be  noticed  also  that  La  Place’s  great  nebulous 
contracting  mass  is  a very  unsatisfactory  conception 
to  begin  with.  No  such  mass  could  rotate  as  a 
whole.  And  lastly,  La  Place’s  theory  does  not  in 
any  way  correspond  with  processes  still  taking  place 
within  the  solar  system.  It  gives  no  account  of  the 
immense  number  of  meteor  flights  and  comets  still 
existing  within  the  solar  domain.”  ( The  Expanse 
of  Heaven , pp.  181,  182,  183). 


110 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


It  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  atheist,  that 
his  cosmogonies  are  based  upon  mere  assumption. 
Allow  the  atheists  to  “assume”  that  this  or  that  was 
the  case,  and  then  permit  him  to  support  his  as- 
sumption with  a string  of  “ ifs,”  of  greater  or  less 
length,  and  it  is  possible  that  he  will  evolve  a 
theory  which,  when  viewed  merely  upon  its  surface, 
may  seem  more  or  less  plausible;  but  a critical  inves- 
tigation of  it  reveals  the  fact  that  it  is  founded  upon 
mere  supposition,  and  that  from  beginning  to  end  it 
is  simply  an  imaginary  affair.  It  is  another  peculi- 
arity of  the  atheist  that  he  embelishes  his  theory 
with  a bewildering  array  of  scientific  terms,  and 
then  attempts  to  palm  the  whole  off  on  us  as  science. 
But  as  a matter  of  fact  the  only  scientific  thing 
about  his  theory  are  the  scientific  terms  which  he 
employs  in  describing  it,  and  the  greater  or  less 
number  of  known  facts  which  he  attempts  to  prove  it 
in  harmony  with.  But  his  theory  as  such,  from  the 
mere  assumption  upon  which  it  is  based,  to  the  er- 
roneous conclusions  to  which  he  argues,  is  the  pur- 
est fiction.  So  it  is  with  La  Place’s  theory.  “ He 
assumed  as  his  starting-point,  the  sun  a nebulous 
star  with  a powerful  nucleus  revolving  on  its  axis, 
etc.”  (Guyot) . Hence,  to  accept  La  Place’s  theory, 
we  must  first  accord  his  assumption  upon  which  it 
is  based,  all  the  value  which  we  accord  to  a demon- 
strated fact;  and,  as  has  been  shown,  we  must  reject 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  that  the  earth  was  the 
first  of  the  great  bodies  formed;  but  this  is  not  all:  to 
accept  the  theory  of  La  Place  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  sun,  moon  and  stars,  and  the  earth  were 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Ill 


formed,  not  only  requires  us  to  reject  the  Bible  with 
reference  to  the  heavens  and  the  purposes  for  which 
they  were  designed,  but  also  requires  us  to  reject 
the  teachings  of  the  sciences  as  to  the  existence  of 
the  ether  of  which  the  heavens  are  composed,  and 
the  purposes  which  it  subserves. 

We  feel  assured  that  the  following  conclusions 
are  unavoidable:  (1)  Suppose  we  accept  La  Place’s 
assumption  that  the  sun  was  a nebulous  star  with  a 
powerful  nucleus  revolving  on  its  axis;  a moment’s 
reflection  must  convince  us  that  this  immense  gas- 
eous mass  could  rotate  only  in  obedience  to  certain 
laws  governing  the  movement  of  matter;  and  the 
presence  of  these  laws  must  be  accepted  as  the  most 
positive  evidence  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
law-maker;  intelligence  of  the  highest  order  is  as 
essential  in  the  enactment  of  laws  governing  the 
movement  of  matter  as  it  is  in  the  enactment  of 
laws  governing  the  actions  of  an  individual  or  a na- 
tion. Hence,  these  laws  under  the  influence  of 
which  La  Place  assumed  that  this  immense  gaseous 
mass  rotated,  would  not  do  away  with  the  necessity 
for  an  intelligent  law-maker — a Creator;  on  the  con- 
trary,  the  presence  of  these  laws  would  but  prove 
the  existence  of  such  a being.  Neither  is  there  any- 
thing in  the  scriptures,  nor  in  the  sciences,  to  indi- 
cate (as  many  professed  Christians  who  advocate 
the  theory  of  development  would  have  us  believe) , 
that  God  enacted  certain  laws  to  govern  the  move- 
ment of  matter,  and  then  left  the  formation  of  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  and  their  phenomena  to  the 
execution  of  these  laws  through  some  process  of  de- 


112 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


velopment;  on  the  contrary,  the  Mosaic  Record  says 
God  made  the  heavens;  God  made  the  sun,  moon, 
and  stars;  God  made  the  plants  and  the  animals; 
and  God  created  man;  and  in  summing  up  the  re- 
sults of  the  creative  week  the  inspired  writer  gives 
the  finishing  blow  to  the  theory  that  the  Plan  of 
Creation  was  perfected  and  the  universe  completed 
by  the  execution  of  certain  laws  governing  the 
movement  of  matter,  as  shown  by  the  following: 
“Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were  finished,  and 
all  the  host  of  them.”  There  was  nothing  left  to 
development;  all  things  were  finished;  when  God 
“rested”  on  the  seventh  day  “ from  all  His  works 
which  He  had  made,”  the  universe  was  perfect  in 
all  its  details. 

(2)  If  we  would  further  admit  that  it  is  pos- 
sible for  the  earth  and  the  planets  to  have  been 
formed  by  gaseous  rings  thrown  off  from  the  sun, 
as  La  Place  assumed,  we  would  still  be  at  a loss  to 
account  for  the  existence  of  the  ether  of  which  the 
heavens  are  composed;  this  ether  which  occupies  all 
the  intervening  space  between  the  sun  and  the 
planets  could  not  have  been  thrown  off  in  the  form 
of  gas  by  the  sun;  it  is  plain  that  if  this  ether  which 
more  resembles  “jelly  than  air,”  and  which  sur- 
rounds the  sun,  and  the  earth,  and  every  star,  was 
in  existence  prior  to  the  formation  of  the  sun,  its 
presence  would  have  effectually  restrained  the  sun 
from  throwing  off  into  space  the  gaseous  rings  of 
which  La  Place  assumed  the  earth  and  the  celestial 
bodies  were  formed;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ether 
made  its  appearance  after  the  earth  and  the  celestial 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EVE. 


113 


bodies  were  formed,  from  what  source  did  it  emanate, 
and  by  what  process  was  it  formed?  Neither  La  Place 
nor  any  one  of  his  many  followers  would  render 
themselves  so  ridiculous  as  to  assert  that  the  neb- 
ulas theory  can  explain  the  origin  of  this  ether;  on 
the  contrary,  the  very  presence  of  this  ether,  which 
is  revealed  by  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences,  fur- 
nishes the  most  positive  proof  of  the  falsity  of  his 
theory. 

To  accept  the  nebular  theory  we  must  believe 
as  La  place  evidently  did,  that  the  sun,  moon  and 
stars  are  situated  in  empty  space,  instead  of  being 
surrounded  by  an  ether  which  is  the  vehicle  of 
their  light.  The  existence  of  this  ether  was  estab- 
lished by  the  English  astronomer,  Thomas  Young, 
who  was  born  in  A.  D.  1773,  and  died  in  1829;  con- 
sequently the  existence  of  this  ether  was  established 
in  the  days  of  La  Place;  yet  this  ether  occupies  no 
place  in  his  theory;  and  the  most  charitable  view  to 
take  of  the  matter  is,  that  La  Place  was  not  aware 
of  its  existence,  for  had  he  known  of  it  he  would 
have  seen  at  a glance  that  his  theory  could  not  ex- 
plain its  origin;  and  consequently  his  anti-scriptural 
and  unscientific  theory  would  not  have  been  thrown 
upon  the  world  to  deceive  and  damn  its  millions,  as 
it  has  done. 

As  has  been  shown,  this  immense  mass  of  ether 
of  which  the  heavens  are  composed  is  the  vehicle 
by  which  the  light  of  the  lumunaries  is  conveyed  to 
our  globe;  and  inasmuch  as  the  nebular  theory 
presupposes  that  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  are  situ- 
ated in  empty  space,  and  makes  no  provision  for 


114 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


this  ether,  it  follows  that  if  the  universe  had  been 
constructed  according  to  the  theory  of  La  Place, 
there  would  have  been  no  medium  by  which  the 
light  of  the  luminaries  could  have  been  conveyed  to 
our  globe,  and  without  this  medium  the  earth  would 
have  been  enveloped  in  darkness,  and  consequently 
would  have  been  incapable  of  producing  and  main- 
taining either  plant  or  animal  life.  Evidently  it  is 
well  that  God — a practical  Creator,  rather  than  La 
Place — an  infidel  speculator — was  the  designer  of 
the  universe. 

This  almost  limitless  mass  of  ether  of  which 
the  heavens  are  composed,  and  which  surrounds 
the  earth,  the  sun,  and  “even  the  remotest  star 
the  telescope  reveals  to  us,”  is  the  most  extensive 
formation  in  all  the  material  universe;  the  earth, 
and  the  celestial  bodies  are  mere  atoms  compared  to 
it;  yet  the  theory  of  La  Place,  so  far  from  explaining 
its  origin,  utterly  ignores  its  existence;  in  addition 
to  this  we  have  shown  by  the  testimony  of  that 
eminent  scientist,  Mr.  Procter,  (1)  that  no  such 
mass  of  “hot,  gaseous  atmosphere”  as  La  Place 
assumed  as  his  “starting  point”  could  rotate  as  a 
whole.  This  being  true,  the  nebular  theory  falls 
still-born  from  the  imagination  of  its  author;  for,  if 
this  immense  gaseous  mass  could  not,  and  did  not 
rotate  on  its  axis,  the  results  which  La  Place  claimed 
accrued  from  this  process  could  not  have  been  ac- 
complished. (2)  “That  it  does  not  account  for  the 
strange  disposition  of  the  masses  of  the  solar  system,” 
as  noted  by  Mr.  Proctor.  (3)  That  “ it  gives  no  ac- 
count of  the  immense  number  of  meteor  flights  and 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


115 


comets  still  existing  in  the  solar  domain.”  When  we 
add  to  these  discrepancies  the  fact  that  it  is  incompe- 
tent to  explain  the  origin  of  the  ether  of  which  the 
heavens  are  composed,  and  which  is  the  vehicle  by 
which  light  is  transmitted  to  all  parts  of  the  uni- 
verse, it  becomes  plain  that  if  we  accord  the  nebular 
theory  all  that  its  most  ardent  advocate  claims  for 
it,  it  could  account  for  only  a mere  fractional  part  of 
the  phenomena  of  the  universe.  And  we  feel  assured 
that  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  intelligence 
of  the  world  will  repudiate  this  miserable  theory 
which  is  in  such  direct  conflict  with  the  teachings 
of  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences. 

The  confident  tone  assumed  by  the  modern 
advocates  of  the  nebular  theory,  is  in  striking  con- 
trast to  the  “distrust”  with  which  its  author 
regarded  it  as  shown  by  his  utterances  quoted  by 
Mr.  Ennis  La  Place’s  “System  du  Monde”  as  given 
in  the  translation  of  J.  Pond,  F.R.S.  (London,  1829). 
In  giving  his  theory  of  the  planetary  system  to  the 
world  La  Place  says:  “Whatever  may  have  been  the 
origin  of  this  arrangement  of  the  planetary  system, 
which  I offer  with  that  distrust  which  every  thing 
ought  to  inspire  that  is  not  the  result  of  observation 
or  calculation,  it  is  certain  that  its  elements  are  so 
arranged  that  it  must  possess  the  greatest  stability, 
if  foreign  observations  (influences?)  do  not  disturb 
it.”  (See  The  Origin  of  the  Stars,  p.  381). 

In  view  of  its  open  conflict  with  well-established 
facts,  it  is  plain  that  the  nebular  hypothesis  richly 
merits  the  distrust  with  which  its  author  regarded  it; 
it  is  also  plain  that  its  utter  worthlessness  is  revealed 


116 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


by  the  following  law  laid  down  by  Huxley,  who  says: 
“Every  hypothesis  is  bound  to  explain,  or  at  any  rate 
not  to  be  inconsistent  with,  the  whole  of  the  facts  it  pro- 
fesses to  account  for;  and  if  there  is  a single  one  of 
these  facts  which  can  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent 
with  (I  do  not  mean  to  be  inexplicable  by,  but  con- 
trary to)  the  hypothesis,  such  hypothesis  falls  to  the 
ground — it  is  worth  nothing.  One  fact  with  which  it 
is  positively  mconsistent  is  worth  as  much,  and  is  as 
powerful  in  negativing  the  hypothesis  as  five  hun- 
dred( Lecture  on  the  Origin  of  Species,  p.  140) . 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  Dry  Land  and  the  Plants. 

“All  flesh  is  grass.”  (Is.  xl,  5;  1 Ps.  i,  24). 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven 
be  gathered  together  unto  one  place,  and  let  the  dry 
land  appear:  and  it  was  so. 

“And  God  called  the  dry  land  earth;  and  the 
gathering  together  of  the  waters  called  He  seas:  and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass, 
and  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree  yieldeth 
fruit  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself  upon  the 
earth:  and  it  was  so. 

“And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass,  and  herb 
bearing  seed  after  his  kind,  and  the  tree  yielding 
fruit,  whose  seed  was  in  itself,  after  his  kind:  and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

“And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the 
third  day.”  (Gen.  i,  11,  12,  13). 

As  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the  inspired 
writer  of  the  narrative  of  Creation  is  silent  as  to  the 
time  when  the  earth  was  formed;  its  formation  may 
have  began,  and  perhaps  did  begin,  with  the  move- 
ment of  matter  on  the  first  creative  day;  and  it  may 
have  been  completed  on  that  day;  or,  it  may  not 
have  been  completed  until  after  the  formation  of 
the  firmament  or  heaven  which  envelops  it  was 

117 


118 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


completed  on  the  second  creative  day.  Be  this  as 
it  may,  the  language  of  our  text  leaves  no  room  for 
doubt  that  on  the  opening  of  the  third  creative  day, 
the  earth  was  already  formed.  Hence,  the  first  com- 
mand given  on  that  day  was,  “ Let  the  waters  under 
the  heaven  be  gathered  together  unto  one  place, 
and  let  the  dry  land  appear:  and  it  was  so.” 

We  are  thus  taught  (1),  that  though  the  earth 
was  already  formed  at  the  beginning  of  the  third 
creative  day,  it  was  enveloped  in  water.  This  places 
the  Mosaic  Record  in  harmony  with  the  sciences 
which  teach  that  in  the  early  history  of  our  globe 
“the  ocean  was  universal” — the  whole  earth  was 
enveloped  in  water.  (See  The  World  Before  the  De- 
luge, p.  95,  Fiquier.  Also  Creation , p.  79,  Grvyot. 
The  Origin  of  the  World , p.  174,  Dawson.  Moses  and 
Geology , p.  93,  Kinns) . (2)  That  the  waters  en- 

veloping the  earth,  perhaps  a greater  or  less 
amount  of  which  was  in  the  form  of  vapor, 
which  extended  from  the  earth’s  surface  to  the 
firmament,  was  condensed  into  water,  and  this  water 
“gathered”  into  the  indentations  on  the  earth’s 
surface  which  God  prepared  for  their  reception,  and 
which  he  called  “ seas.”  (3)  That  God’s  commands, 
“ Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be  gathered  to- 
gether unto  one  place,”  and  “ Let  the  dry  land  ap- 
pear,” were  executed,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
inspired  writer  says,  “ And  it  was  so.”  (4)  That  the 
inspired  writer  of  the  Narrative  of  Creation  thus  em- 
phatically commits  the  Bible  to  the  teaching  that  the 
earth  was  the  first  of  the  great  bodies  formed. 

Inasmuch  as  the  inspired  author  is  silent  as  to 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


119 


when  the  formation  of  the  earth  began,  or  when  it 
was  completed,  we  have  no  data  upon  which  to  base 
a decision  upon  this  subject,  for  the  sciences  can 
throw  no  light  upon  these  questions.  There  is  a 
strong  disposition  on  the  part  of  men  to  theorize 
upon  this  subject,  and  to  speculate  as  to  how,  and 
when,  the  earth  was  formed;  but  with  no  data, 
either  scriptural  or  scientific,  to  guide  them  to  cor- 
rect conclusions,  their  speculations  must  inevitably 
culminate  in  so  many  guesses;  and  the  mere  fact  that 
in  most  cases  the  guesser  is  a man  of  scientific  attain- 
ments does  not  raise  his  guess  to  the  dignity  of  a sci- 
ence, since  science  is  something  known.  Hence,  all  at- 
tempts to  explain  the  time  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  earth  was  formed  is  not  only  the  height  of  folly, 
but  is  actually  criminal,  because  misleading.  The 
necessity  for  caution  in  this  matter  is  shown  by  the 
statement  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  the  great  English 
geologist,  who  says:  “In  the  }rear  1806  the  French 

Institute  enumerated  no  less  than  eighty  geological 
theories  which  were  hostile  to  the  scriptures;  but 
not  one  of  these  theories  is  held  to-day.”  Is  it  not 
creditable  to  the  Bible  that  these  theories  which 
were  hostile  to  it,  were  abandoned  because  of  their 
falsity? 

For  a time  the  controversy  waxed  hot  between 
the  advocates  of  the  igneous  theory,  and  those  of  the 
aqueous  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  earth;  the 
former  insisting  that  the  earth  was  formed  through 
the  agency  of  fire,  and  the  latter  maintaining  that 
the  earth  was  formed  through  the  agency  of  water. 
But  as  the  theory  of  La  Place,  which  assumes  the 


120 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


earth  to  have  formerly  been  a molten  mass,  was 
generally  accepted,  the  igneous  theory  gained  the 
ascendancy  over  its  rival.  This  theory  teaches  that 
the  earth  was  formerly  a molten  mass,  which,  in 
the  process  of  cooling  gradually  formed  a crust 
around  its  molten  interior,  and  that  this  crust  is 
now  many  miles  thick.  The  majority  of  these  theo- 
rists estimates  the  thickness  of  the  “ earth’s  crust,” 
to  be  from  twenty- five  to  thirty-five  miles;  but  Dr. 
Hopkins,  an  equally  “ high  authority,”  estimates 
“ the  probable  thickness  of  the  earth’s  solid  crust  at  a 
minimum  of  800  miles.”  ( The  World  Before  the  Del- 
uge, p.  88) . The  great  discrepency  between  the  es- 
timates of  these  “ savants”  reveals  the  fact  that  they 
are  utterly  unreliable;  estimates,  to  be  of  any  value, 
must  be  based  upon  facts;  but  the  estimates  of  these 
gentlemen  are  based  upon  mere  conjecture.  This  is 
further  shown  by  the  fact  that,  the  deepest  excava- 
tions made  in  the  earth,  have  not  exceeded  two 
miles.  Hence,  no  man  knows  what  exists  in  the 
earth  at  a depth  of  800  miles,  or  even  twenty-five 
miles. 

We  have  shown  (1)  that,  for  some  good  reason 
known  only  to  Himself,  God  declined  to  acquaint 
Moses  as  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which  the 
earth  was  formed.  (2)  That  the  sciences  can  throw 
no  light  upon  these  questions.  (3)  That  man  is  ig- 
norant, and  must  forever  remain  in  hopeless  ignor- 
rance  of  even  the  materials  and  the  forces  which 
were  employed  in  the  construction  of  the  earth. 
This  being  true,  it  follows  that  the  modern  theorists 
who,  with  no  data  to  aid  them  in  reaching  correct 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


121 


conclusions,  attempt  to  explain  the  origin  of  the 
earth,  might  have  profited  by  the  crushing  rebuke 
which  God  administered  to  Job  out  of  the  whirlwind: 
“Who  is  this  that  darkeneth  counsel  with  words 
without  knowledge?  Gird  up  thy  loins  like  a man; 
for  I will  demand  of  thee,  and  answer  thou  me. 
Where  wast  thou  when  I laid  the  foundations  of  the 
earth?  declare,  if  thou  hast  understanding.  Who 
hath  laid  the  measures  thereof,  if  thou  knowest?  or 
who  hath  stretched  a line  upon  it?  Whereupon  are 
the  foundations  thereof  fastened?  or  who  laid  the 
cornerstone  thereof;  when  the  morning  stars  sang 
together,  and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy?” 

As  has  been  shown,  we  are  absolutely  ignorant 
of  and  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  what  the  con- 
ditions are,  or  what  exists  in  the  interior  of  the  earth 
at  a depth  of  4,000  miles,  or  1,000  miles,  or  100 
miles,  or  even  10  miles  from  its  surface.  Hence, 
when  the  scientist  proposes  to  enlighten  us  upon 
these  subjects,  he  at  once  abandons  the  domain  of 
science  where  he  is  guided  by  facts,  and  enters  the 
boundless  realm  of  speculation  where  his  imagina- 
tion is  his  only  guide.  While  this  is  true,  the  science 
of  geology  is  invaluable  because  of  the  assistance  it 
renders  us  in  ascertaining  the  order  in  which  the 
plants  and  animals  made  their  appearance  on  the 
earth.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  compare  the  teach- 
ings of  the  geological  record  with  those  of  the  Mo- 
saic Record  upon  this  subject.  Thus,  the  declara- 
tion of  Job  holds  good:  “Speak  to  the  earth  and  it 
shall  teach  thee.” 

Geology  is  the  science  of  the  earth.  When 


122 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


viewed  in  the  light  of  this  science,  the  various 
stratas  of  the  earth  may  properly  be  regarded  as  so 
many  pages  in  the  geological  history  of  our  globe. 
Those  stratas  which  were  in  process  of  formation 
when  the  first  plants  and  animals  made  their  ap- 
pearance on  the  earth,  contain  more  or  less  of  their 
remains.  The  remains  of  the  first  plants  and  ani- 
mals are  found  in  the  lowest  stratas  of  the  earth* 
while  those  of  more  recent  origin  are  found  in  the 
upper  stratas.  Thus  the  geological  record  is  formed; 
and  when  these  stratas  are  undisturbed  the  remains 
of  plants  and  animals  which  the}^  contain  furnish  us 
a record  which  throws  an  immense  amount  of  light 
upon  the  history  of  plant  and  animal  life  on  our 
globe. 

Recognizing  the  Mosaic  Record  as  God’s  Word, 
and  the  facts  presented  by  the  geological  record  as 
God’s  works,  we  feel  assured  that  the  teachings  of 
these  great  records  will  harmonize  to  a nicety  when 
each  is  carefully  investigated  and  properly  under- 
stood. Hence,  we  feel  no  hesitancy  in  comparing 
the  Narration  of  Creation  with  the  geological  history 
of  plant  and  animal  life  on  the  earth  as  revealed  by 
scientific  research.  And  we  have  now  reached  a 
point  in  our  investigations  where  the  results  of  geo- 
logical research  enables  us  to  compare  the  two  records. 

We  should  note  the  fact  that  the  inspired  writer 
commits  the  Bible  to  the  teaching  that  plant  life 
preceded  animal  life  on  the  earth.  We  quote  the 
following  high  authorities  on  the  distinctive  charac- 
teristics of  plants  and  animals.  Professor  Dana, 
says:  “ Plants  find  nutriment  in  carbolic  acid,  appro- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


123 


priate  the  carbon  and  excrete  oxygen,  a gas  essential 
to  animal  life;  animals  use  oxygen  in  respiration, 
and  excrete  carbonic  acid,  a gas  essential  to  vegetable 
life. 

“ Plants  take  inorganic  material  as  food,  and 
turn  it  into  organic;  animals  take  this  organic & 
material  thus  prepared  (plants) , or  other  organic 
materials  made  from  it  (animals) , finding  no  nutri- 
ment in  inorganic  matter.  The  vegetable  kingdom 
is  a provision  for  the  storing  away  or  magazining  of 
force  for  the  animal  kingdom.”  ( Manual  of  Geology , 
p.  115) . 

Dr.  Kinns  says:  “The  exact  period  when  plants 
first  appeared  cannot  be  told,  for  their  delicate  struct- 
ure is  such  that  their  earliest  forms  may  have  been 
entirely  destroyed.  We  may  be  certain,  however, 
that  they  preceded  animals,  for  as  they  can  derive 
their  nourishment  and  add  to  their  tissues  from 
inorganic  matter,  which  animals  cannot  do,  it  would 
be  necessary  for  them  to  have  existed  in  some  form 
first  for  animals  to  feed  upon.”  ( Moses  and  Geology , 
p.  145). 

Professor  Guyot  says:  “The  most  important 
function  of  the  plant  in  the  economy  of  nature  is  to 
turn  inorganic  into  organic  matter,  and  thus  prepare 
food  for  the  animal.  Nothing  else  in  nature  does 
this  work.  The  animal  cannot  do  it,  and  starves  in 
the  midst  of  an  abundance  of  the  materials  needed 
for  the  building  up  of  its  body.  The  plant  stores  up 
force  which  it  is  not  called  upon  to  use;  the  animal 
takes  it  ready-made  as  food,  and  expends  it  in  activ- 
ity. The  plant,  therefore,  is  the  indispensable  basis 


124 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


of  all  animal  life;  for  though  animals  partially  feed 
upon  each  other,  ultimate^  the  organic  matter  thejT 
need  must  come  from  the  plant.”  ( Creation , pp.  88, 
89). 

Having  shown  that  vegetation,  which  is  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  the  animal,  necessarily  pre- 
ceded animal  life  on  the  earth,  it  is  now  in  order  for 
us  to  investigate  that  part  of  our  text  which  describes 
the  introduction  of  plant  life. 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass, 
the  herb  bearing  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree  yielding 
fruit  after  his  kind:  and  it  was  so.” 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  inspired  writer 
divides  the  plants  into  three  classes:  grass,  herbs 
bearing  seed,  and  fruit  trees  yielding  fruit,  all  after 
their  kind. 

Dr.  Kinns  in  discussing  this  text  says:  “For  the 
present,  I will  show  that  a better  translation  of  the 
verses  relating  to  the  advent  of  vegetable  life  will 
prove  the  marvelous  correctness  of  Moses’  state- 
ments. I would  just  say  that  in  endeavoring  to  give 
a more  suitable  rendering  of  this  and  other  passages, 
I have  consulted  high  authorities,  and  have  been 
aided  by  some  of  our  most  eminent  scholars,  whom 
I have  mentioned  in  my  preface.  These  gentlemen 
confirm  Dr.  Kitto’s  explanation  of  this  verse,  that 
the  word  deshe,  translated  ‘grass,’  is  applicable  to 
every  kind  of  verdure  in  the  state  of  sprouting. 

“ Secondly,  that  esebh,  rendered  ‘ herb,’  denotes 
a higher  order  of  plants  propagated  by  seeds,  for  as 
Kitto  says,  the  words  ‘herb  yielding  seed’  are  very 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


125 


emphatic  in  the  original;  they  are,  litterly,  herb  seed- 
ing seed , exactly  imitated  in  the  Septuagint  version. 

“Thirdly  {'ets  p’ri)  fruit  trees  may  refer  to  cer- 
tain trees  of  the  Devonian  and  Carboniferous 
periods,  some  of  which  approached  to  true  fruit 
trees.  Here,  then,  we  get  much  light  upon  the  mat- 
ter; for  such  translations  enable  us  to  see  that  the 
Geological  and  Biblical  statements  are  not  at  vari- 
ance.” ( Moses  and  Geology , p.  144) . 

In  discussing  our  text,  Professor  Dawson  says: 
“Deshe,  translated  ‘grass’  in  our  version,  is  derived 
from  a verb  signifying  to  spring  up  or  bud  forth; 
the  same  verb,  indeed,  used  in  this  verse  to  denote 
‘ bringing  forth  ’ literally  causing  to  spring  up.  Its 
radical  meaning  is  therefore,  vegetation  in  the  act 
of  sprouting  or  springing  forth.  * * * ‘ With 

respect  to  the  use  of  the  word  in  this  place,  I may 
remark:  (1)  It  is  not  correctly  translated  by  the 
word  ‘grass’;  for  grass  bears  seed,  and  is,  con- 
sequently, a member  of  the  second  class  of  plants 
mentioned.  Even  if  we  set  aside  all  ideas  of  inspira- 
tion, it  is  obviously  impossible  that  any  one  living 
among  a pastoral  or  agricultural  people  could  have 
been  ignorant  of  this  fact.  (2)  It  can  scarcely  be  a 
general  term,  including  all  plants  when  in  a young 
or  tender  state.  The  idea  of  their  springing  up  is 
included  in  the  verb,  and  this  was  but  a very  tem- 
porary condition.  Besides,  this  word  does  not  appear 
to  be  employed  for  the  young  state  of  shrubs  or 
trees.  (3)  We  thus  appear  to  be  shut  up  to  the 
conclusion  that  deshe  here  means  those  plants,  mostly 
small  and  herbaceous,  which  bear  no  proper  seeds; 


126 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


in  other  words,  the  cryptogamia — as  fungi,  mosses, 
lichens,  ferns,  etc.  The  remaining  words  are  trans- 
lated with  sufficient  accuracy  in  our  version.  They 
denote  seed-bearing  or  phcenogamous  herbs  and 
trees.  * * * ‘ The  arrangement  of  the  plants  in 

three  great  classes  of  cryptogams,  seed-bearing  herbs, 
and  fruit  bearing  trees  differs  in  one  important  point, 
— viz.:  the  separation  of  herbaceous  plants  from  trees 
— from  modern  botanical  classification.  It  is,  how- 
ever, sufficiently  natural  for  the  purposes  of  a 
general  description  like  this,  and  perhaps  gives 
more  precise  ideas  of  the  meaning  intended  than 
any  other  arrangement  equally  concise  and  popular. 
It  is  also  probable  that  the  object  of  the  writer  was 
not  so  much  a natural  history  classification  as  an 
account  of  the  order  of  creation,  and  that  he  wishes 
to  affirm  that  the  introduction  of  these  three  classes 
of  plants  on  the  earth  corresponded  with  the  order 
here  stated.  This  view  renders  it  unnecesary  to 
vindicate  the  accuracy  of  the  arrangement  on  botani- 
cal grounds,  since  the  historical  order  was  evidently 
better  suited  to  the  purpose  in  view,  and  in  so  far  as 
the  earlier  appearance  of  crytogamous  plants  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  in  strict  accordance  with  geological 
fact.”  ( The  Origin  of  the  World , pp.  186,  187,  188). 

Thus  it  is  shown  (1)  that  the  inspired  writer 
divides  the  plants  into  three  classes:  “ Spr outage" 

(Cryptogamia — as  fungi,  mosses,  lichens,  ferns, 
etc.,  which  are  seedless,  and  reproduce  from  spores .) 
Herb  bearing  seed.  (Herb  is  “ a plant,  the  atom  of 
which  is  not  woody;  a plant  producing  shoots  only 
of  annual  duration  from  the  surface  of  the  earth.” 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


127 


Herbaceous  plant  is  one  “the  stem  of  which  per- 
ishes annually;  one  producing  an  annual  stem  from 
a perennial  root.”)  And  Fruit  Trees.  (2)  That  the 
teachings  of  the  Mosaic  Record  with  reference  to  the 
order  in  which  these  three  classes  of  plants  made 
their  appearance  upon  the  earth  corresponds  with  the 
Geological  Record  upon  this  subject.  The  vegeta- 
tion which  was  introduced  upon  the  earth  on  the 
third  cosmogonic  day  was  confined  to  wild  plants, 
which  subsist  without  cultivation;  in  a subsequent 
chapter  we  shall  show  that  domestic  plants,  which 
require  cultivation,  made  their  appearance  on  the 
earth  simultaneously  with  man  on  the  sixth  day. 

The  vegetation  of  the  earth  attained  its  greatest 
luxuriance  in  what  is  known  as  the  “ Carboniferous 
Age;”  and  this  age  is  divided  into  three  periods: 
The  Subcarboniferous,  the  Carboniferous,  and  the 
Permian.  {Dana) . . 

The  following  description  of  the  flora  of  the 
Carboniferous  Age  is  taken  from  Figuire’s  World 
Before  the  Deluge: 

“ In  the  history  of  our  globe  the  Carboniferous 
period  succeeds  to  the  Divonian.  It  is  in  the  forma- 
tion of  this  latter  epoch  that  we  find  the  fossil  fuel 
which  has  done  so  much  to  enrich  and  civilize  the 
world  in  our  own  age.  * * * ‘ The  monuments 

of  this  era  of  profuse  vegetation  reveal  themselves 
in  the  precious  coal-measures  of  England  and  Scot- 
land. These  give  us  some  idea  of  the  rich  verdure 
which  covered  the  surface  of  the  earth,  newly  risen 
from  the  bosom  of  its  parent  waves.  It  was  the 
paradise  of  terrestrial  vegetation.  The  grand  Sig- 


128 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


gillaria,  the  Calamites,  and  other  fern-like  plants, 
were  especially  typical  of  this  age,  and  formed  the 
woods,  which  were  left  to  grow  undisturbed;  for  as 
yet  no  living  Mammals  seem  to  have  appeared; 
everything  indicates  a uniformly  warm,  humid  tem- 
perature, the  only  climate  in  which  the  gigantic  ferns 
of  the  coal-measures  could  have  attained  their  mag- 
nitude. * * * ‘ Conifers  have  been  found  of 

this  period  with  concentric  rings,  but  these  rings 
are  more  slightly  marked  than  in  existing  trees  of 
the  same  family,  from  which  it  is  reasonable  to  as- 
sume that  the  seasonal  changes  were  less  marked 
than  they  are  with  us.  * * * ‘ The  fundamental 

character  of  the  period  we  are  about  to  study  is  the 
immense  development  of  a vegetation  which  flour- 
ished in  remote  ages  of  the  world.  Buried  under 
an  enormous  thickness  of  rocks,  it  has  been  pre- 
served to  our  days,  after  being  modified  in  its  on- 
ward nature  and  external  aspect.  Having  lost  a 
portion  of  its  elementary  constituents,  it  has  become 
transformed  into  a species  of  carbon,  impregnated 
with  those  bituminous  substances  which  are  the  or- 
dinary products  of  the  slow  decomposition  of  veg- 
etable matter. 

“Thus  coal,  which  supplies  our  manufacturers 
and  our  furnaces,  which  is  the  fundamental  agent  of 
our  productive  and  economic  industry  — the  coal 
which  warms  our  houses  and  furnishes  the  gas 
which  lights  our  streets  and  dwellings  — is  the  sub- 
stance of  the  plants  which  formed  the  forests,  the 
vegetation,  and  the  marshes  of  the  ancient  world  at 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


129 


a period  too  distant  for  human  chronology  to  calcu- 
late with  anything  like  precision.  * * * 

“ Let  us  pause  for  a moment,  and  consider  the 
general  characters  which  belonged  to  our  planet 
during  the  carboniferous  period.  Heat  — though 
not  necessarily  excessive  heat  — and  extreme  hu- 
midity were  then  the  attributes  of  its  atmosphere. 
The  modern  allies  of  the  species  which  formed  its 
vegetation  are  now  only  found  under  the  burning 
latitudes  of  the  tropics;  and  the  enormous  dimen- 
sions in  which  we  find  them  in  the  fossil  state 
prove,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  atmosphere  was 
saturated  with  moisture.  Dr.  Livingston  tells  us 
that  continual  rains,  added  to  intense  heat,  are  the 
climatic  characteristics  of  Equatorial  Africa,  where 
the  vigorous  and  tufted  vegetation  flourishes  which 
is  so  delightful  to  the  eye. 

“It  is  a remarkable  circumstance  that  condi- 
tions equable  and  warm  climate,  combined  with  hu- 
midity, do  not  seem  to  have  been  limited  to  any  part 
of  the  globe,  but  the  temperature  of  the  whole  globe 
seems  to  have  been  nearly  the  same  in  very  differ- 
ent latitudes.  From  the  equatorial  regions  up  to 
Melville  Island,  in  the  Arctic  Ocean,  where  in  our 
days  eternal  frost  prevails  — from  Spitzbergin  to  the 
center  of  China,  the  carboniferous  flora  is  identically 
the  same.  When  Novaia  Similia  and  New  South 
Wales  had  a flora  much  alike,  when  the  same  spe- 
cies, now  extinct,  are  met  with  of  equal  development 
at  the  equator  as  at  the  pole,  we  cannot  but  admit 
that  at  this  epoch  the  temperature  of  the  globe  was 
nearly  alike  everywhere.  What  we  call  climate  was 


130 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


unknown  in  these  geological  times.  There  seems  to 
have  been  then  only  one  climate  over  the  whole 
globe.  It  was  at  a subsequent  period,  that  is  in 
Tertiary  times,  that  the  cold  began  to  make  itself 
felt  at  the  terrestrial  poles.  * * * 

“The  ferns,  which  in  our  days  and  in  our  cli- 
mate, are  most  commonly  only  small  perennial 
plants,  in  the  carboniferous  age  sometimes  pre- 
sented themselves  under  lofty  and  even  magnificent 
forms. 

“ Every  one  knows  those  marsh  plants  with 
hollow,  channelled,  and  articulated  cylindrical  stems; 
whose  joints  are  furnished  with  a membranous,  den- 
ticulated sheath,  and  which  bear  the  vulgar  name  of 
‘ mare’s  tails,’  their  fructification  forming  a sort  of 
catkin  composed  of  many  rings  of  scales,  carrying 
on  their  lower  surface  sacs  full  of  spores  or  seeds. 
These  humble  Equiseta  wTere  represented  during  the 
coal-period  by  herbaceous  trees  from  twenty  to 
thirty  feet  high  and  four  to  six  inches  in  diameter. 
Their  trunks,  channelled  longitudinally,  and  divided 
transverse^  by  lines  of  articulation,  have  been  pre- 
served to  us:  they  bear  the  name  of  Calamites. 
They  seem  to  have  grown  by  means  of  an  under- 
ground stem,  while  new  buds  issued  from  the 
ground  at  intervals.  * * * 

“The  Lycopods  of  our  age  are  humble  plants, 
scarcely  a yard  in  height,  and  most  commonly 
creepers;  but  the  Lycopodiacese  of  the  ancient 
world  were  trees  of  eighty  or  ninety  feet  in  height. 
It  was  the  Lepidodendrons  which  filled  the  forest. 
Their  leaves  were  sometimes  twenty  inches  long, 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE, 


131 


and  their  trunks  a yard  in  diameter.  Such  are  the 
dimensions  of  some  specimens  of  Lepidodindron  cari- 
natum  which  have  been  found.  Another  Lycopod 
of  this  period,  the  Lomatophloios  crassicaule,  attained 
dimensions  still  more  colossal.  The  Sigillarias  some- 
times exceeded  100  feet  in  height.  Herbaceous 
Ferns  were  also  exceedingly  abundant,  and  grew  be- 
neath the  shade  of  these  gigantic  trees.  It  was  the 
combination  of  these  lofty  trees  with  such  shrubs 
(if  we  may  so  call  them) , which  formed  the  forests 
of  the  Carboniferous  period.  * * * 

“This  flora,  then,  consists  of  great  trees,  and 
also  of  many  smaller  plants,  forming  a close,  thick 
turf,  or  sod,  when  partially  buried  in  marshes  of  al- 
most unlimited  extent.  There  have  been  described 
as  characterising  the  period,  1,700  species  of 
plants  belonging  to  families  which  we  have  already 
seen  making  their  first  appearance  in  the  Devonian 
period,  but  which  now  attain  a prodigious  develop- 
ment. * * * Such  is  a general  view  of  the  features 
most  characteristic  of  the  coal-period,  and  of  the  pri- 
mary epoch  in  general.  It  differs  altogether  and 
absolutely,  from  that  of  the  present  day;  the  cli- 
matic conditions  of  these  remote  ages  of  the  globe, 
however,  enables  us  to  comprehend  the  characteris- 
tics which  distinguish  its  vegetation.  A damp  at- 
mosphere, of  an  equable  rather  than  intense  heat 
like  that  of  the  tropics,  a soft  light  veiled  by  per- 
manent fogs,  were  favorable  to  the  growth  of  this 
peculiar  vegetation,  of  which  we  search  in  vain  for 
anything  strictly  analogous  in  our  own  days.  The 
nearest  approach  to  the  climate  and  vegetation  pro- 


132 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


per  to  the  geological  period  which  now  occupies  our 
attention,  would  probably  be  found  in  certain  is- 
lands, or  on  the  littoral  of  the  Pacific  Ocean — the 
island  of  Chiloe,  for  example,  where  it  rains  300 
days  in  the  year,  and  where  the  light  of  the  sun  is 
shut  out  by  perpetual  fogs;  where  arborescent  ferns 
form  forests,  beneath  whose  shade  grow  herbaceous 
ferns,  which  rise  three  feet  and  upwards  above  a 
marshy  soil,  which  give  shelter  also  to  a mass  of 
cryptogamic  plants  greatly  resembling,  in  its  main 
features,  the  flora  of  the  coal-measures.” 

In  closing  his  discussion  of  the  three  classes  of 
plants  described  in  our  text,  Dr.  Kinns  says ' “ Here 
I must  clear  up  another  difficulty.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  though  I give  other  meanings  to  the  words 
translated  ‘ grass  ’ and  ‘ herb,’  I still  adhere  to  the 
word  1 fruit  trees  ’ (’ ets  p’ri)  ; but  instead  of  there 
being  an  error  in  point  of  time,  I can  show  that  both 
in  the  Devonian  and  Carboniferous  periods  there 
existed  numerous  trees  of  the  Coniferous  order,  the 
seed-vessels  of  which  might  be  properly  styled  fruit. 

* * * ‘ Some  of  the  seed-vessels  were  quite 

surrounded  with  fleshy  coatings,  which  might,  as  in 
the  Ginkgo  of  Japan,  have  constituted  edible  fruits. 

* * * ‘The  interior  integument  is  very  thick 

and  cellular,  and  was,  no  doubt,  once  fleshy.  The 
second  coat  was  thinner,  but  hard,  and  marked  by 
three  ridges.  This  coating,  being  all  that  commonly 
remains  in  a fossil  state,  has  suggested  the  name  of 
Trigonocarpon.  Within  this  were  the  third  and 
fourth  coats,  both  of  which  are  very  delicate  mem- 
branes, and  may  possibly  have  been  two  plates  be- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


133 


longing  to  one  membrane.  Lyell  says  its  geological 
importance  is  great ; for  so  abundant  is  it  in  the 
Coal  Measures  that  in  certain  localities  the  fruit  of 
some  species  may  be  procured  by  the  bushel.  ‘ On 
the  whole,’  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  says,  ‘these  fruits 
are  referable  to  a highly-developed  type,  exhibiting 
extensive  modifications  of  elementary  organs  for  the 
purpose  of  their  adaptation  to  special  functions ; 
and  these  modifications  are  as  great,  and  the  adapta- 
ion  as  special,  as  any  to  be  found  amongst  analagous 
fruits  in  the  existing  vegetable  world.”  ’ (Ibid,  pp. 
156,157,158,159). 

Thus,  the  geological  record  sustains  the  Mosaic 
Record  in  its  teaching  that  these  three  great  classes 
of  plants,  “ Sproutage,”  “ Herb-bearing  seed,”  and 
“Fruit-trees,”  made  their  appearance  in  the  order 
stated. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


Luminaries. 

“ And  God  said,  let  there  be  lights  in  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven  to  divide  the  day  from  the  night; 
and  let  them  be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for 
days,  and  for  years. 

“ And  let  them  be  for  lights  in  the  firmament  of 
the  heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth:  and  it 
was  so. 

“And  God  made  two  great  lights;  the  greater 
light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the 
night:  he  made  the  stars  also. 

“And  God  set  them  in  the  firmament  of  heaven 
to  give  light  upon  the  earth. 

“And  to  rule  over  the  day  and  over  the  night, 
and  to  divide  the  light  from  the  darkness:  and  God 
saw  that  it  was  good. 

And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the 
fourth  day.”  (Gen.  i,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19). 

We  should  note  that  in  addition  to  producing 
light,  the  celestial  bodies  were  designed  for  other 
purposes — “to  divide  the  light  from  the  darkness,” 
and  for  “ signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and 
years;”  that  the  “greater  light” — the  sun — should 
“ rule  the  day,”  and  the  lesser  light — the  moon — 
should  “ rule  the  night.”  And  that  they  discharge 

134 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


135 


the  duties  for  which  they  were  designed  is  attested 
by  the  inspired  writer,  who  says,  “ And  it  was  so.” 
Here  we  have  the  most  positive  proof  that  one 
of  the  purposes  for  which  the  sun  and  moon  were 
formed  was  for  “ days,”  and  that  prior  to  the  fourth 
creative  day  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  a 
“ solar  day,”  or  day  of  twenty-four  hours,  beginning 
with  the  rising,  and  ending  with  the  setting  of  the 
sun;  and  that  the  six  creative  days,  three  of  which 
passed  before  the  sun  existed  were  not  solar  days, 
since  there  was  no  sun  to  mark  their  beginning  and 
ending.  Hence,  the  Bible  is  silent  as  to  length  of 
the  creative  days,  as  well  as  that  of  the  seventh  day, 
in  which  God  rested  from  his  works;  while  the  re- 
sults of  all  scientific  research  prove  that  they  were 
immense  periods  of  time;  and  this  is  further  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  seventh  day  upon  which  God 
rested  from  His  works,  has  continued  for  thousands 
of  years  with  no  evidence  at  present  that  it  is  near- 
ing its  close. 

The  separation  of  “ the  light  from  the  darkness,” 
thus  producing  day  and  night,  and  the  division  of 
time  into  months  and  years,  are  processes  too  well 
understood  to  require  discussion  here;  while  it  is 
equally  well  known  that  the  signs  of  the  Zodiac  are 
derived  from  the  celestial  bodies: 

“There  stay  until  the  twelve  celestial  signs 
Have  brought  about  their  annual  recoming.” 

— Shakespeare. 

The  atheists  and  infidels  who,  as  a class,  are  ad- 
vocates of  the  Nebular  Hypothesis,  delight  to  ridi- 
cule the  teaching  of  the  Bible  that  plant  life  was  in- 


136 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


troduced  on  the  earth  prior  to  the  formation  of  the 
sun,  moon  and  stars;  and  many  professed  believers 
in  the  Bible  combat  this  teaching  of  the  Mosaic 
Record,  which  is  so  directly  opposed  to  their  theory. 

We  should  note  the  fact  that  the  introduction 
of  plant  life  was  the  last  event  of  the  third  creative 
day;  and  immediately  following  this  event  the  for- 
mation of  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  began  on  the 
fourth  creative  day.  As  has  been  shown,  the  three 
classes  of  plants  — Sproutage,  Herb-bearing  Seed , and 
Fruit  Trees,  made  their  appearance  on  the  earth  in 
the  order  stated;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  Mosaic 
Record  to  indicate  that  these  three  classes  of  plants 
all  made  their  appearance  on  the  third  creative  day. 
Hence,  the  mere  introduction  of  plant  life  on  the 
third  creative  day  would  meet  all  the  requirements 
of  the  Mosaic  Record.  On  the  other  hand,  the  geo- 
logical record  shows  that  fruit  trees  made  their  ap- 
pearance in  the  Devonian  Age,  long  after  the  celestial 
bodies  were  formed.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertain- 
ing the  precise  period  when  vegetation  made  its  ap- 
pearance on  the  earth,  but  the  geological  record  in- 
dicates that  it  occurred  in  what  is  termed  Archean 
Time.  In  discussing  this  period,  Mr.  Dana  says: 

“No  distinct  remains  of  plants  have  been  ob- 
served. The  occurrence  of  graphite  in  the  rocks, 
and  its  making  20  per  cent,  of  some  layers,  is  strong 
evidence  that  plants  of  some  kind,  if  not  also  ani- 
mals, were  abundant.  For  graphite  is  carbon,  one 
of  the  constituents  of  wood  and  animal  matters;  and 
mineral  coal,  whose  vegetable  origin  is  beyond  ques- 
tion, has  been  observed,  in  the  carboniferous  rocks 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


137 


of  Rhode  Island,  changed  to  graphite;  and  even  coal 
plants,  as  ferns,  occur  at  St.  Johns,  New  Brunswick, 
in  the  state  of  graphite.  Further,  the  amount  of 
graphite  in  the  Laurentian  rocks  is  enormous.  Daw- 
son observes  (taking  his  facts  from  Logan)  that  it  is 
scarcely  an  exaggeration  to  maintain  that  the  quan- 
tity of  carbon  in  the  Laurentian  is  equal  to  that  in 
similar  areas  of  the  Carboniferous  system.  * * * 

In  Europe,  graphite  occurs  in  the  Archaean  rocks  of 
Bavaria;  anthracite  has  been  observed  in  the  iron- 
bearing rocks  of  this  age  at  Arendal,  Norway;  and 
carbonacious  (partly  anthracite)  and  bituminous  sub- 
stances are  distributed  through  layers  of  Archaean 
gneiss  and  mica  schist  at  Nullaburg,  in  Wermland, 
Sweden,  constituting  5 to  10  per  cent.,  facts  point- 
ing clearly  to  the  existence  of  life  before  this  era.  * * 

“The  plants  must  have  been  the  lowest  of  Cryp- 
togams or  flowerless  species,  and  mainly  at  least,  ma- 
rine Algae  or  Sea- Weeds;  for  the  Primordial  beds 
next  succeeding  contain  remains  of  nothing  higher. 
This  argument  from  the  Primordial  excludes  all 
mosses  and  the  ordinary  terrestrial  plants;  but  not 
necessarily  lichens,  since  these  grow  in  dry  places, 
and  could  not  have  contributed  to  marine  deposits 
if  they  had  existed.  It  is  hence  possible  that,  be- 
sides sea-weeds  in  the  water,  there  were  lichens  over 
the  bare  rocks.  The  easily  destructible  fungi  may 
also  have  lived  in  damp  places.”  ( Manual  of  Geol- 
ogy, pp.  157,  158). 

According  to  the  theory  of  La  Place,  the  earth 
was  formerly  a molten  mass  which,  in  the  process  of 
cooling  formed  a crust  around  its  molten  interior; 


138 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


as  the  globe  continued  to  cool,  its  crust  thickened 
until  the  temperature  of  the  waters  and  the  surface 
of  the  earth  were  sufficiently  reduced  as  to  make  it 
possible  for  vegetation  to  exist,  when  plant  life  made 
its  appearance  as  the  result  of  spontaneous  generation; 
during  this  period  the  earth,  but  recently  elevated 
above  the  waves  of  the  “ primeval  ocean,”  was  en- 
veloped in  dense  clouds  and  vapors  which  excluded 
the  greater  part  of  the  sun’s  light  and  heat  until  the 
clouds  and  vapors  were  dissipated  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  Carboniferous  Age;  but  during  the  continu- 
ance of  the  clouds  and  vapors  there  was  sufficient 
light  for  vegetation,  while  the  excluded  heat  of  the 
sun  was  compensated  for  by  the  internal  heat  of  the 
earth,  which  stimulated  the  growth  of  the  profuse 
vegetation  of  that  early  period,  and  produced  that 
uniformity  of  temperature  of  the  earth’s  surface 
which  existed  from  pole  to  pole. 

If  we  accept  the  Nebular  Hypothesis  which 
teaches  that  the  sun  is  older  than  the  earth,  and  that 
it  is  in  fact  the  parent  of  the  earth,  we  must  reject 
the  Bible  which  teaches  that  the  earth  is  older  than 
the  sun,  and  that  vegetation  was  introduced  upon 
its  surface  before  the  celestial  bodies  existed;  we 
must  also  accept  the  theory  that  the  earth  was 
formerly  a molten  mass;  that  the  heat  which  stimu- 
lated the  growth  of  vegetation  down  to  the  Permian 
period,  and  produced  an  even  temperature  through- 
out the  earth’s  surface  at  that  remote  period  was  de- 
rived from  the  molten  interior  of  the  earth;  while 
the  light  in  which  the  vegetation  of  Archsean  time 
flourished  was  obscured  sunlight.  But  as  has  been 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


139 


shown,  the  Nebular  Hypothesis  is  a mere  speculation 
at  best;  and  its  falsity  is  demonstrated  by  its  conflict 
with  the  scriptures,  and  with  well  established  scien- 
tific facts;  and  also  its  failure  to  explain  more  than 
a fractional  part  of  the  phenomena  of  the  universe. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  reject  the  Nebular 
Hypothesis  with  all  its  absurdities,  and  adhere  to 
the  Bible,  we  must  explain  the  source  from  which 
the  heat  and  light  necessary  for  vegetation  was  de- 
rived prior  to  the  existence  of  the  sun,  moon  and 
stars;  and  happily,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
modern  science  comes  to  the  support  of  the  Bible 
by  furnishing  a solution  of  this  problem.  In  dis- 
cussing this  question  we  should  bear  in  mind  (1) 
That,  11  Heat  and  light  are  hut  different  intensities  of 
the  vibratory  motions  of  matter .”  (2)  That  in  the 

movement  of  these  great  masses  of  matter  which 
were  concentrated  in  the  earth  and  its  enveloping 
firmament,  an  immense  amount  of  heat  was  gener- 
ated, which  raised  the  temperature  of  the  earth’s 
surface,  its  waters,  and  its  atmosphere  to  a point  far 
too  high  to  make  it  possible  for  plant  life  to  have 
then  existed  on  the  globe.  (3)  That  when  the 
firmament  which  surrounds  the  earth  was  com- 
pleted on  the  second  creative  day,  it  confined  the 
heat  of  the  earth’s  surface  and  its  waters,  and  its 
atmosphere,  to  the  earth,  just  as  it  confines  the 
earth’s  waters  and  its  atmosphere  to  the  earth  to- 
day. This  immense  amount  of  heat  had  no  means 
of  escape  save  by  abstraction  from  its  contact  with 
the  intensely  cold  firmament  above;  this  cooling 
process  was  necessarily  very  slow,  and  doubtless  ex- 


140 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


tended  through  that  long  period  of  time  described 
in  the  Mosaic  Record  as  the  third  day.  Thus,  by 
the  abstraction  of  its  excessive  heat  the  earth  was 
prepared  for  the  introduction  of  plant  life.  (4) 
That  the  first  event  of  the  third  creative  day  was 
the  separation  of  the  “dry  land”  from  the  waters 
that  enveloped  it;  this  was  necessarily  a slow  pro- 
cess, and  doubtless  required  ages  for  its  accomplish- 
ment. (5)  That  during  the  period  when  the  earth 
was  enveloped  in  water,  and  for  a long  time  after,  the 
dry  land  was  separated  from  the  waters,  the  atmos- 
phere being  at  a high  temperature,  was  saturated 
with  water,  for  the  disposition  of  air  is  to  take  up 
vapor  from  water  with  which  it  is  brought  in  contact 
in  proportion  to  its  temperature.  (6)  That  the  in- 
troduction of  plant  life  on  the  earth  was  the  last 
event  of  the  third  creative  day;  and  immediately 
preceded  the  opening  of  the  fourth  creative  day. 
(7)  That  on  the  fourth  creative  day,  the  formation 
of  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  began.  (8)  That  in  the 
movement  of  these  immense  masses  of  matter  of 
which  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  were  formed,  there 
was  an  enormous  amount  of  heat  generated;  and 
that  a great  amount  of  this  heat  was  radiated  to 
every  part  of  the  earth’s  surface,  and  stimulated  the 
growth  of  the  vegetation  of  the  earth  until  the  forma- 
tion of  the  celestial  bodies  was  completed,  when  the 
heat  from  this  formative  process  ended,  and  was 
compensated  for  by  the  heat  derived  from  the  sun. 
In  addition  to  stimulating  the  growth  of  vegetation, 
the  heat  which  resulted  from  the  movement  of  mat- 
ter in  the  formation  of  the  celestial  bodies,  doubtless 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


141 


retarded  the  cooling  of  the  earth’s  atmosphere,  and 
contributed  largely  to  prolonging  that  evenness  of 
temperature  at  the  earth’s  surface  which  character- 
ized those  early  periods.  (9)  That  in  the  move- 
ment of  these  great  masses  of  matter  which  were 
concentrated  in  the  celestial  bodies  in  the  process  of 
their  formation,  there  was  a considerable  amount  of 
light — cosmic  light — generated;  and  that  an  amount 
of  this  light,  sufficient  for  the  needs  of  vegetation, 
penetrated  the  vapors  which  then  enveloped  the 
earth,  just  as  the  rays  of  light  from  the  sun  after- 
wards did.  Thus,  with  the  aid  of  modern  science, 
which  teaches  that  heat  and  light  are  but  different 
intensities  of  the  vibratory  motions  of  matter,  we 
find  that  in  the  movement  of  these  enormous  masses 
of  matter  which  were  concentrated  in  the  celestial 
bodies  on  the  fourth  creative  day,  we  have  the  true 
source  from  which  the  heat  and  light  necessary  for 
vegetation,  was  derived  at  that  remote  period  when 
plant  life  was  introduced  on  our  globe. 

To  suppose  that  in  the  movement  of  those 
enormous  masses  of  matter  which  were  concentrated 
in  the  sun,  moon  and  stars,  neither  heat  nor  light 
was  generated,  would  compel  us  to  reject  the  teach- 
ing of  modern  science  that  heat  and  light  are  hut 
different  intensities  of  the  vibratory  motions  of  matter. 
The  Bible  plainly  teaches  that  each  of  the  six  crea- 
tive days  were  distinct  periods  of  time;  and  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  the  line  of  demarcation  be- 
tween them  was  sharply  drawn.  Hence,  the  ending 
of  one  of  the  creative  days  was  instantly  followed  by 
its  succeeding  day;  and  thus  the  last  event  of  the 


142 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


one  day  was  immediately  followed  by  the  first  event 
of  the  succeeding  day;  for  example:  the  introduc- 
tion of  plant  life — the  last  event  of  the  third  creative 
day,  was  immediately  followed  by  the  movement  of 
matter  in  the  process  of  its  formation  into  the  sun, 
moon  and  stars,  on  the  fourth  day,  and  in  the 
movement  of  these  immense  masses  of  matter  all  the 
heat  and  light  necessary  for  vegetation  was  pro- 
duced, when  the  vapors  which  enveloped  the  earth 
were  dissipated  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Carbonifer- 
ous Age,  the  “ two  great  lights  ” at  once  entered 
upon  the  duties  for  which  they  were  designed — “ for 
signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and  years.” 
This  event  is  marked  in  the  Geological  Record  by  the 
appearance  of  concentric , or  season  rings  on  the 
forest  growths  of  the  Permian  period;  these  season 
rings  mark  the  advent  of  the  seasons. 

The  following  definition  of  the  term  seasons  is 
sufficiently  accurate  for  our  purpose,  since  it  shows 
that  the  seasons  produce  the  variations  in  climate, 
and  consequently  exert  the  most  direct  influence 
upon  vegetation.  Hence,  prior  to  the  advent  of 
the  seasons,  the  climate  of  the  globe  was  identical 
from  pole  to  pole — in  fact,  properly  speaking,  there 
was  no  such  thing  as  climate;  the  temperature  was 
the  same  on  every  portion  of  the  earth’s  surface,  as 
shown  by  the  fact  that  vegetation  at  the  equator  was 
identical  with  that  at  the  poles: 

“Season.  * * * 

“I.  Lit.  and  Astron.:  The  alternations  in  the 
relative  lengths  of  day  and  night,  heat  and  cold, 
etc.,  which  take  place  each  year.  * * * The 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


143 


essential  astronomical  fact  on  which  the  recur- 
rence of  the  successive  seasons  depends  is  that 
the  axis  of  the  earth  always  points  in  the  same 
direction,  whatever  portion  of  the  orbit  the  earth 
may  at  the  time  be  traversing.  The  inclination 
of  the  equator  to  the  ecliptic  is  23°  27'.  On 
June  21st,  when  the  sun  is  at  the  highest  point 
of  the  ecliptic,  the  north  pole  necessarily  inclines 
toward  the  sun,  and  is  as  much  irradiated  as  it  ever 
can  be  by  his  beams,  whilst  the  south  pole,  on  the 
contrary,  is  as  little.  It  is  therefore  midsummer  in 
the  northern,  and  midwinter  in  the  southern  hemi- 
sphere. Six  months  later,  December  21st,  the  south- 
ern pole  points  towards  the  sun.  It  is,  therefore,  now 
midwinter  in  the  northern,  and  midsummer  in  the 
southern  hemisphere.  At  the  intermediate  periods 
(March  21st.  and  September  21st.)  the  axis  of  the 
earth  is  at  right  angles  to  the  direction  of  the  sun; 
hence,  in  both  hemispheres  it  is  the  equinox — the 
vernal  at  the  former  date  in  the  northern,  and  at  the 
latter  in  the  southern  hemisphere.”  ( Universal  Dic- 
tionary, p.  4,  170). 

After  discussing  the  profuse  vegetation  of  the 
Carboniferous  Age,  Dr.  Kinns  says  of  the  Permian 
period:  “In  the  Permian  system  the  profuse  vegeta- 
tion of  the  Carboniferous  no  longer  existed;  but  the 
fossil  remains  of  plants  show  a great  increase  of 
ligneous  or  woody  tissue,  which  could  only  have 
been  produced  by  the  presence  of  unclouded  sun- 
light. Most  of  the  trees  I described  in  the  last 
chapter  were  of  a soft  and  pulpy  nature,  with  no 
season-rings,  for  huge  trunks  several  feet  in  diame- 


144 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


ter  were  found  in  the  coal  compressed  and  flattened 
where  they  lie  in  a horizontal  or  inclining  position; 
season-rings,  however,  are  found  in  the  flora  of  the 
Trias  and  Secondary  strata.”  {Ibid,  p.  188). 

Sir  Robert  S.  Ball  in  discussing  the  sun,  says: 
“In  commencing  our  examination  of  the  orbs  which 
surround  us,  we  naturally  begin  with  our  peerless 
sun.  His  splendid  brilliance  gives  him  the  pre- 
eminence over  all  other  celestial  bodies.  The  di- 
mensions of  our  luminary  are  commensurate  with 
his  importance. 

“Astronomers  have  succeeded  in  the  difficult 
task  of  ascertaining  the  exact  figures,  but  they  are 
so  gigantic  that  the  results  are  hard  to  realize.  The 
diameter  of  the  orb  of  day,  or  the  length  of  the  axis, 
passing  through  the  center  from  one  side  to  the 
other,  is  865,000  miles.  Yet  this  bare  statement  of 
the  dimensions  of  the  great  globe  fails  to  convey  an 
adequate  idea  of  its  vastness.  If  a railway  were  laid 
round  the  sun,  and  if  we  were  to  start  in  an  express 
train  moving  sixty  miles  an  hour,  we  should  have  to 
travel  for  five  years  without  intermission  night  or 
day  before  we  had  accomplished  the  journey. 

“When  the  sun  is  compared  with  the  earth  the 
bulk  of  our  luminary  is  still  more  striking.  Suppose 
his  globe  were  cut  up  into  one  million  parts,  each  of 
these  parts  would  appreciably  exceed  the  bulk  of  the 
earth.  Were  the  sun  placed  in  one  pan  of  a mighty 
weighing  balance,  and  were  300,000  bodies  as  heavy 
as  our  earth  placed  in  the  other,  the  luminary  would 
turn  the  scale.  * 

“The  actual  distance  of  the  sun  from  the  earth 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


145 


is  about  92,700,000  miles;  but  by  merely  reciting  the 
figures  we  do  not  receive  a vivid  impression  of  the 
real  magnitude.  * * * It  would  be  necessary  to 

count  as  quickly  as  possible  for  three  days  and  three 
nights  before  one  million  was  completed;  yet  this 
would  have  to  be  repeated  nearly  ninety-three  times 
before  we  had  counted  all  the  miles  between  the 
earth  and  the  sun.”  {The  Story  of  the  Heavens , 
pp.  26,  27,  28). 

Mr.  Richard  A.  Proctor  says: 

“In  long  past  ages  there  were  nations  that  wor- 
shiped the  sun.  He  was  their  God;  he  seemed  to 
them  as  a being  of  might,  ‘ rejoicing  as  a giant  to  run 
his  course,’  and  capable  not  only  of  influencing  the 
fortunes  of  men  and  nations,  but  of  hearkening  and 
responding  to  their  prayers.  A vain  thought  truly, 
for  the  creature  was  worshiped  and  the  Creator  for- 
gotten. Yet  of  all  the  forms  of  religion  in  which 
created  things  were  worshiped  sun-worship  was  the 
least  contemptible.  Indeed,  if  there  is  any  object 
which  men  can  properly  take  as  an  emblem  of  the 
power  and  goodness  of  Almighty  God,  it  is  the  sun. 

“The  sun  is  an  emblem  of  the  Almighty  in  be- 
ing the  source  whence  all  that  lives  upon  the  earth 
derives  support.  Our  very  existence  depends  on 
the  beneficient  supply  of  light  and  heat  poured  out 
continually  upon  the  earth  by  the  great  central  orb 
of  the  planetary  scheme.  Let  the  sun  forget  to  shine 
for  a single  day,  and  it  would  be  with  us  even  as  though 
God  had  forgotten  our  existence,  or  had  remem- 
bered us  only  to  punish;  myriads  of  creatures  now 
living  on  the  earth  would  perish,  uncounted  millions 


146 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


would  suffer  fearfully.  But  let  the  sun’s  rays  cease  to 
be  poured  out  for  four  or  five  days,  and  every  living 
creature  on  the  earth  would  be  destroyed.  Or,  on 
on  the  other  hand,  even  a worse  (or  at  least  more 
sudden  and  terrible)  fate  would  befall  us  if  an  angel 
of  wrath  ‘ poured  out  his  vial  upon  the  sun,  and 
power  were  given  unto  it  to  scorch  men  with  fire.’ 

“Yet  again  the  sun  is  an  emblem  of  the  Al- 
mighty in  the  manner  in  which  he  bestows  benefits 
upon  us  and  is  forgotten.  Day  after  day  we  enjoy 
the  sun’s  light  and  heat;  clouds  may  conceal  him 
from  our  view,  much  as  troubles  may  cause  us  to 
forget  God;  and  the  heat  he  pours  out  may  seem 
sometimes  insufficient  or  excessive,  even  as  in  our 
ignorance  we  are  dissatisfied  with  the  blessings  be- 
stowed by  the  Almighty.  Yet  these  very  clouds 
are  among  the  good  works  we  owe  to  the  sun — they 
bring  the  rain  which  ‘drops  fatness  upon  the  earth;’ 
and  without  the  changes  of  the  season  there  would 
be  neither  the  time  of  harvest  nor  the  time  of  vin- 
tage. The  cold  of  winter  and  the  heat  of  summer, 
at  which  we  often  repine  as  excessive,  are  as  neces- 
sary for  our  wants  as  the  cool  breeze  and  the  genial 
warmth  of  spring  or  autumn. 

“We  commonly  forget,  also,  that  the  sun,  be- 
sides sustaining  us  by  his  light-giving  and  heat-sup- 
plying  powers,  keeps  us  always  near  to  him  by  that 
mighty  force  of  attraction  which  his  vast  bulk  en- 
ables him  to  exert.  When  we  look  at  the  sun  as  he 
rises  (even  as  ‘ the  glory  of  God  coming  from  the 
way  of  the  east’),  how  seldom  is  the  thought  pres- 
ent in  our  minds  that  in  that  ruddy  orb  there  exists 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


147 


the  most  tremenduous  power,  swaying  not  only  this 
vast  globe  on  which  we  live,  but  orbs  yet  vaster  than 
she  is,  and  traveling  on  far  wider  courses;  that  the 
light  and  heat  which  seem  to  be  gathering  forces  as 
he  rises,  are  in  reality  poured  forth  with  fullness,  even 
while  as  yet,  owing  to  our  position,  we  receive  but 
little  of  them — nay,  that  during  the  dark  hours  of 
the  night  they  have  been  poured  forth  abundantly 
upon  the  earth,  and  that  so  rich  is  the  sun  in  power 
and  beneficence,  through  the  might  of  his  Creator 
and  ours,  that  our  earth  is  nourished  and  supported 
by  the  two  thousand  millionth  part  of  the  heat  and 
light  which  he  pours  forth!  * * * 

“ If  we  would  rightly  measure  the  sun’s  activity 
as  a dispenser  of  God’s  gifts  of  light  and  heat,  we 
must  consider  what  our  earth  receives.  * * * It 

has  been  calculated  that  the  heat  received  by  the 
earth  during  twenty-four  hours  would  be  sufficient 
to  raise  an  ocean  250  yards  deep,  covering  the  whole 
surface  of  the  earth  from  the  temperature  of  freezing 
water  to  that  of  boiling  water.  And  this,  be  it  remem- 
bered, is  less  than  2,000  millionth  part  of  the  heat 
which  the  sun  pours  out  into  space  during  the  same 
interval  of  time.  Ceaselessly  the  wonderful  stream 
of  heat-waves  is  poured  out  on  all  sides.  So  ener- 
getic is  it  that  the  heat  emitted  in  a single  second 
would  suffice  to  boil  195  millions  of  cubic  miles  of 
ice-cold  water.  Or,  to  take  another  illustration,  which 
recent  experience  as  to  the  value  of  our  coal  supplies 
will  bring  home  to  many  of  us  with  peculiar  force — 
in  order  to  produce  by  the  burning  of  coals  the  sup- 
ply of  heat  which  we  receive  from  the  sun,  there 


148 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


would  have  to  be  consumed  on  every  square  yard  of 
the  sun’s  surface  no  less  than  six  tons  of  coal  per 
hour;  while,  if  a globe  as  large  as  our  earth  had  to 
maintain  such  a supply  of  heat,  it  would  be  neces- 
sary that  on  every  square  yard  of  its  surface  more 
than  three  tons  of  coal  should  be  consumed  in  every 
second  of  time.”  {The  Expanse  of  Heaven , pp.  11,  12, 
13,  16,  17). 

In  discussing  the  moon,  Sir  Robert  S.  Ball 
says: 

“ If  the  moon  were  suddenly  struck  out  of  exis- 
tence, we  should  be  immediately  apprised  of  the 
fact  by  a wail  from  every  sea-port  in  the  kingdom. 
From  London  and  from  Liverpool  we  should  hear 
the  same  story — the  rise  and  fall  of  the  tide  had  al- 
most ceased.  The  ships  in  dock  could  not  get  out; 
the  ships  outside  could  not  get  in;  and  the  maritime 
commerce  of  the  world  would  be  thrown  into  dire 
confusion. 

“ The  moon  is  the  principal  agent  in  causing  the 
daily  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide,  and  this  is  the  most  im- 
portant work  which  our  satellite  has  to  do.  The  fleets 
of  fishing  boats  around  the  coasts  time  their  daily 
movements  by  the  tide,  and  are  largely  indebted  to 
the  moon  for  bringing  them  in  and  of  the  harbor. 
Experienced  sailors  assure  us  that  the  tides  are  of 
the  utmost  service  to  navigation.  * * * 

“ The  brilliancy  of  the  moon  arises  solely  from 
the  light  of  the  sun  which  falls  on  the  not  self-lumi- 
nous substance  of  the  moon.  Out  of  the  vast  flood 
of  light  Avhich  the  sun  pours  forth  with  such  prodi- 
gality into  space  the  dark  body  of  the  moon  inter- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


149 


cepts  a little,  and  of  that  little  it  reflects  a small  frac- 
tion to  illuminate  the  earth.  The  moon  sheds  so 
much  light,  and  seems  so  bright,  that  it  is  often  diffi- 
cult at  night  to  remember  that  the  moon  has  no  light, 
except  what  falls  on  it  from  the  sun.  Neverthe- 
less, the  actual  surface  of  the  brightest  full  moon 
is  perhaps  not  much  brighter  than  the  streets  of 
London  on  a clear  sunshiny  day.  * * * 

“ The  brilliancy  and  apparent  vast  proportions 
of  the  moon  arise  from  the  fact  that  it  is  only  240, 
000  miles  away,  which  is  a distance  almost  immeasur- 
ably small  when  compared  with  the  distances  between 
the  earth  and  the  stars.  * * * When  we  meas- 

ure the  actual  diameters  of  the  two  globes,  we  find 
that  of  the  earth  to  be  7,918  miles,  and  of  the  moon, 
2,160  miles,  so  that  the  diameter  of  the  earth  is 
nearly  four  times  greater  than  the  diameter  of  the 
moon.  If  the  earth  were  cut  into  fifty  pieces,  all 
equally  large,  then  one  of  these  pieces  rolled  into  a 
globe  would  equal  the  size  of  the  moon.  The  super- 
ficial extent  of  the  moon  is  equal  to  about  one-thir- 
teenth part  of  the  surface  of  the  earth.  The  hemis- 
phere our  neighbor  turns  towards  us  exhibits  an 
area  equal  to  about  one  twenty-seventh  part  of  the 
area  of  the  earth.  This,  to  speak  approximately,  is 
about  double  the  actual  extent  of  the  continent  of 
Europe.  The  average  materials  of  the  earth  are, 
however,  much  heavier  than  those  contained  in  the 
moon.  It  would  take  more  than  eighty  globes,  each 
as  ponderous  as  the  moon,  to  weigh  down  the  earth.” 
( The  Story  of  the  Heavens , pp.  49,  50,  51,  52) . 


150 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


In  discussing  the  moon,  Mr.  Proctor  says: 

“ Although  the  sun  must  undoubtedly  have  been 
the  first  celestial  object  whose  movements  or  aspect 
attracted  the  attention  of  men,  yet  it  can  scarcely  be 
questioned  that  the  science  of  astronomy  had  its 
real  origin  in  the  study  of  the  moon.  Her  compara- 
tively rapid  motion  in  her  circuit  around  the  earth 
afforded  in  very  early  ages  a convenient  measure  of 
time.  The  month  was,  of  course,  in  the  first  place,  a 
lunar  time-measure.  The  week , the  earliest  division 
of  time  (except  the  day  alone)  of  which  we  have  any 
record,  had  also  its  origin  in  the  lunar  motions.” 
( The  Moon , p.  1 ) . 

In  further  discussing  the  moon,  Mr.  Proctor 
says: 

“I  have  spoken  of  the  reverence  with  which 
men  in  long  past  ages  contemplated  the  sun.  * * * 
And  many  nations  worshipped  him  as  a god.  But 
with  this  worship  there  was  commonly  associated  a 
subordinate  worship  of  the  moon;  and  among  some 
nations  the  moon  was  esteeined  the  greater  deity. 

“Our  month,  although  not  according  with  the 
lunar  month,  nevertheless  had  its  origin  in  the  study 
of  the  lunar  motions,  as  indeed  the  name  of  this  in- 
terval of  time  sufficiently  indicates.  I need  hardly 
remind  the  reader,  again,  of  the  part  which  the  moon 
takes  in  fixing  the  dates  of  the  Jewish  movable  fes- 
tivals, while  our  own  movable  festivals  in  like  man- 
ner depend  on  the  moon’s  motions,  the  Paschal  full 
moon  determining  Easter  Day,  and  the  other  movable 
feasts  following  accordingly. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


151 


“ The  benefits  rendered  by  the  moon  as  a light- 
giver  at  night  need  hardly  be  insisted  upon.  Whe- 
well  has  well  remarked,  in  his  Bridgewater  Treatise, 
that  ‘ a person  of  ordinary  feelings,  who  on  a fine 
moonlight  night’  (moonlit  is  the  more  correct  expres- 
sion) ‘ sees  our  satellite  pouring  her  mild  radiance 
on  field  and  town,  path  and  moor,  will  probably  not 
only  be  disposed  to  ‘bless  the  useful  light,’  but  also 
to  believe  that  it  was  ‘ ordained  ’ for  that  purpose. 
The  great  mathematician  La  Place  adopted  an  op- 
posite view.  Setting  himself  boldly,  one  ma}^  say 
defiantly,  against  the  wholesome  belief  that  there  is 
method  and  design  in  the  works  of  the  Creator,  he 
sneers  at  the  belief  of  ‘those  partisans  of  final 
causes  who  have  imagined  that  the  moon  was  given 
to  the  earth  to  afford  light  during  the  night.’  This 
‘cannot  be  so,’  he  remarked,  ‘for  we  are  often  de- 
prived at  the  same  time  of  the  light  of  the  sun  and 
the  moon,’  and  he  proceeds  to  show  how  the  moon 
might  so  have  been  placed  as  to  be  always  ‘ full,’  in 
other  words,  opposite  the  sun.  * * * 

“La  Place’s  device,  however,  involves  the  ne- 
cessity of  a moon  of  different  size  and  distance.  He 
shows  how  a moon  about  four  times  as  far  off  as  our 
moon  realty  is,  would  revolve  around  the  earth  in 
the  same  time  the  sun  apparently  does,  and  would 
present  always  a full  aspect — if  originally  placed  op- 
posite the  moon.  It  is  a slight  objection  to  this 
imagined  state  of  things  that,  for  La  Place’s  moon  to 
appear  as  large  as  ours,  it  should  have  a diameter 
about  four  times  as  great,  and  be  in  fact  as  large  as 


152 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


our  earth,  while  the  motions  assigned  to  it  require 
that  it  should  not  be  more  massive  than  the  present 
moon.  Thus  it  would  have  to  be  made  of  material 
exceedingly  light,  about  sixty  times  lighter  than  the 
present  substance  of  the  moon.  This  would  be 
about  seventeen  times  lighter  than  water,  and  more 
than  four  times  lighter  than  cork.  We  know  of  no 
such  substance,  and  therefore  it  seems  idle  to  dis- 
cuss further  La  Place’s  daring  notion.  But  this  also 
may  be  remarked:  that  although  such  a moon  as  he 
described  might  for  a very  long  period  continue  al- 
ways exactly  opposite  the  sun,  yet  in  the  course  of 
time  this  moon  would  gradually  fall  away  from  that 
position;  for  the  motions  both  of  the  earth  and  of  this 
imagined  moon  could  not  possibly  remain  absolutely 
uniform.  Thus  at  length  a time  would  come  when 
this  moon,  instead  of  being  always  ‘ full,’  would  be 
always  ‘ new,’  that  is,  always  on  the  same  side  as  the 
sun,  and  so  give  no  light  at  all,  even  if  she  did  not 
eclipse  the  sun. 

“ On  the  whole,  we  may  be  content  to  accept  the 
moon  as  we  find  her,  and  to  ‘ bless  her  useful  light,’ 
without  being  particular  to  inquire  whether  another 
moon  might  not  have  given  us  more  light,  or  under 
more  convenient  conditions.  * * * 

“It  is  clear  that  the  action  of  the  moon  in  rais- 
ing a great  tidal  wave  is  of  important  service  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth.  It  is  probable,  indeed,  that 
the  tides  are  absolutely  necessary  to  preserve  the 
ocean  waters  in  a healthy  condition  by  continual 
movement.  But  the  tidal  wave  discharges  special 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


153 


services  exceedingly  important  to  mankind.  The 
building  and  launching  of  ships  would  be  rendered 
a task  of  much  greater  difficulty  if  it  were  not  for 
the  alternate  rise  and  fall  of  the  sea.  No  one,  again, 
who  is  familiar  with  life  at  the  seaside,  and  particu- 
larly in  cities  placed  near  the  mouths  of  great  tidal 
rivers,  can  fail  to  recognize  abundant  evidence  of 
the  importance  of  the  variations  of  the  sea’s  level  in 
many  nautical  and  commercial  processes. 

“ But  perhaps  the  greatest  benefit  conferred  by 
the  moon  on  mankind  is  one  which  few  are  aware  of. 
It  may  truly  be  said  that  each  year  hundreds  of  lives 
that  would  otherwise  be  endangered  are  rendered 
safe  by  her  means.  It  is  known  then  when  our  sea- 
men pass  far  beyond  the  sight  of  land,  their  safety 
depends  on  their  observations  of  the  celestial  bodies. 
By  such  observations  they  are  enabled  to  learn 
where  they  are,  or,  in  technical  words,  their  latitude 
and  longitude — that  is,  their  distance  north  or  south 
of  the  equator,  and  their  distance  east  or  west  of 
some  fixed  station,  such  as  Greenwich.  Now,  their 
latitude  is  easily  determined  by  observations  of  the 
sun  or  stars,  whose  altitude  when  due  south  depends 
solely  on  the  latitude.  But  it  is  different  with  the 
longitude,  for  when  we  travel  due  east  or  west  we  do 
not  find  the  apparent  paths  of  the  sun  and  stars 
changing  at  all.  The  only  change  which  takes  place 
is  in  the  time  at  which  the  celestial  bodies  rise  and 
set.  It  is,  of  course,  noon  when  the  sun  is  due 
south,  wherever  the  observer  may  be  (at  least  in  our 
northern  hemisphere) . But  it  is  not  Greenwich 


154 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


noon,  unless  the  observer  is  due  north  or  south  of 
Greenwich.  If  he  is  east  of  Greenwich  it  is  past 
Greenwich  noon  when  it  is  noon  for  the  observer’s 
station,  and  if  he  is  west  of  Greenwich  it  is  before 
Greenwich  noon  when  the  sun  is  due  south.  If  he 
has  a clock  showing  Greenwich  time  he  can  thus 
learn  how  far  east  or  west  he  may  be.  Now,  the 
moon,  properly  observed,  serves  for  the  seaman  the 
part  of  a clock  which  can  never  go  wrong.  The 
stars  serve  as  the  marks  on  the  great  dial  plate  of 
the  heavens,  by  which  the  position  of  the  moon — 
the  moving  hand  — can  be  determined  with  the 
utmost  nicety.  Calculations  are  then  applied  to 
show  precisely  where  the  moon  would  be  seen 
among  the  stars  if  the  observer  were  at  the  center 
of  the  earth  instead  of  at  his  actual  station.  And 
then  a reference  to  the  Nautical  Almanac  shows  pre- 
cisely what  is  the  Greenwich  time.  Thence  the  ob- 
server learns  how  far  east  or  west  he  is  of  Green- 
wich. And  often,  after  many  cloudy  nights  have 
passed,  the  observation  of  the  moon  has  shown  the 
sailor  that  owing  to  currents  and  misjudged  rate  of 
sailing  he  has  been  far  out  in  his  reckoning;  and  he 
has  been  saved  by  the  moon  from  a great  danger. 
So  that  we  may  find  a new  meaning  in  the  words  of 
the  inspired  Psalmist:  ‘They  that  go  down  to  the 
sea  in  ships,  that  do  business  in  great  waters;  these 
see  the  works  of  the  Lord,  and  His  wonders  in  the 
deep.’”  (The  Expanse  of  Heaven,  pp.  20,  23,  24,  25, 
27,  28,  29). 

These  are  a few  of  the  many  important  offices 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


155 


which  the  celestial  bodies  perform  for  the  earth,  its 
plant  and  animal  life,  and  for  man;  but  their  men- 
tion should  be  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  realize  how 
foolish,  to  say  nothing  of  how  ungrateful,  it  is  for 
us  to  make  common  cause  with  atheists  and  infidels 
in  their  attempts  to  deprive  God  of  the  credit  due 
Him  for  His  works,  by  assigning  their  origin  and 
operations  to  mere  chance. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


The  Formation  of  the  Animals 
and 

The  Creation  of  Mind. 

“ And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth 
abundantly  the  moving  creature  that  has  life,  and 
fowl  that  may  fly  above  the  earth  in  the  open  fir- 
mament of  heaven. 

“ And  God  created  great  whales,  and  every  liv- 
ing creature  that  moveth,  which  the  waters  brought 
fourth  abundantly,  after  their  kind,  and  every 
winged  fowl  after  his  kind,  and  God  saw  that  it  was 
good. 

“ And  God  blessed  them,  saying,  Be  fruitful, 
and  multiply,  and  fill  the  waters  in  the  seas,  and 
let  fowl  multiply  in  the  earth. 

“ And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the 
fifth  day.”  (Gen.  i,  20,  21,  22,  23). 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  shown  (1) 
that  plant  life  preceded  animal  life  on  the  globe. 
(2)  That  the  three  classes  of  forest  plants — Sprout- 
age,  Herb-bearing  seed,  and  Fruit  trees,  made  their 
appearance  on  the  earth  in  the  order  stated  in  the 
Mosaic  Record,  but  that  these  three  classes  of  plants 
did  not  all  make  their  appearance  on  the  third  cre- 
ative day,  but  only  the  first,  and  lowest  class  of 
these  plants;  and  that  the  last,  and  highest  class  of 

156 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  E7E, 


157 


plants — fruit  bearing  trees — did  not  make  their  ap- 
pearance until  the  Permian  period,  which  occurred 
during  the  sixth  creative  day,  as  shown  by  the  re- 
mains of  land  animals  found  among  the  vegetable 
remains  of  that  period.  Hence,  the  greatest  event  of 
the  third  creative  day  was  the  introduction  on  the 
earth  of  life — - plant  life — in  its  simplest  form.  While 
the  Mosaic  Record  is  silent  upon  the  subject,  the 
Geological  Record  clearly  shows  that  during  the 
fourth  creative  day,  in  which  the  celestial  bodies 
were  formed,  the  plant  life  of  the  globe  was  confined 
to  the  simplest  forms — the  lowest  class — of  vegeta- 
tion— sproutage;  and  a moment’s  reflection  should 
convince  us  that  it  would  require  an  immense  period 
of  time  for  the  decomposed  remains  of  such  del- 
icate plants  as  sea-weeds,  ferns,  lichens,  etc.,  to  form 
a strata  of  soil  of  any  considerable  thickness.  The 
slowness  with  which  these  delicate  plants  form  a 
strata  of  earth  of  any  great  thickness  explains  the 
fact  that  the  remains  of  the  earliest  animals  are 
found  associated  with  the  remains  of  early  plant 
life.  Hence,  the  mere  fact  that  we  find  remains  of 
animals  associated  in  some  of  the  oldest  stratas  of 
the  earth,  is  no  evidence  that  plant  life  and  animal 
life  made  their  appearance  on  the  earth  simultane- 
ously; in  fact  the  earliest  stratas  show  only  the  re- 
mains of  plant  life,  while  the  Mosaic  Record  teaches 
that  a long  period  of  time — the  fourth  creative  day 
— intervened  between  the  introduction  of  plant  and 
animal  life. 

The  Geological  Record  sustains  the  Mosaic 
Record  in  its  teachings  that  animal  life  as  presented 


158 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


in  the  fish,  followed  the  introduction  of  plant  life. 
Professor  Dana,  in  discussing  the  life  of  the  Lower 
Silurian,  says: 

“The  Primordial  rocks  have  afforded  evidence 
only  of  marine  life. 

“ 1.  Plants.  Algae,  or  seaweeds,  of  the  kind 
called  Fuciods,  are  the  only  forms  observed.  The 
slabs  of  sandstone  are  sometimes  covered  through- 
out with  veriform  casts  of  what  appear  to  be  stems 
of  this  leathery  kind  of  seaweed.  Some  of  the  fos- 
sils formerly  regarded  as  indications  of  plants,  are 
now  believed  to  be  worm-tracks  or  borings.  But 
others  show  by  their  branching  forms  that  the}7  are 
true  Fuciods. 

“ 2.  Animals.  The  species  observed  are  all  in- 
vertibrates;  they  pertain  to  the  four  sub-kingdoms, 
Protozoans,  Radiates,  Mollusks,  and  Articulates.” 
{Manual  of  Geology , p.  169). 

It  will  be  observed  that  our  text  describes  two  dis- 
tinct kinds  of  animals  which  were  introduced  upon  the 
globe  on  the  fourth  creative  day;  the  one  to  inhabit 
the  waters,  the  other  to  “ fly  above  the  earth  in  the 
open  firmament  of  heaven.” 

In  the  English  version  of  our  text,  the  Hebrew 
word  tannin,  which  signifies  great  stretched-out  sea 
monsters,  is  translated  whales.  Professor  Dawson 
says : 

“It  is  interesting  to  know  that  the  philologists 
trace  a connection  between  tannin  and  the  Greek 
teino,  Latin  tendo,  and  similar  words,  signifying  to 
stretch  or  extend,  in  the  Sanscrit,  Gothic,  and  other 
languages,  leading  to  the  inference  that  the  Hebrew 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


159 


word  primarily  denotes  a lengthened  or  extended 
creature,  which  corresponds  well  with  its  application 
to  the  crocodile.  Taking  all  the  above  facts  in  con- 
nection, we  are  quite  safe  in  concluding  that  the 
creatures  referred  to  by  the  word  under  considera- 
tion are  literally  reptilian  animals;  and  from  the 
special  mention  made  of  them,  we  may  infer  that, 
in  their  day,  they  were  the  lords  of  creation.”  ( The 
Origin  of  the  World , pp.  214,  215). 

Those  huge  monsters  of  the  Triassic  period,  the 
Ichthyosaurus,  and  the  Plesiosaurus,  and  others  of 
their  kind  were  doubtless  the  creatures  referred  to 
by  the  inspired  writer.  Fossil  remains  of  the  Ichthy- 
osaurus show  it  to  have  attained  a length  of  thirty 
feet;  the  fossil  remains  of  the  largest  Plesiosaurus 
known  is  in  the  museum  of  the  Royal  Society  of 
Dublin,  and  measures  twenty-three  feet.  Mr.  Kinns 
says:  “ Professor  Owen  says  that  he  is  justified  in 
recording  sixteen  different  species  of  the  Plesi- 
osaurus; and  it  is  to  him,  in  his  ‘Report  on  British 
Reptiles,’  I owe  the  information  that  the  Ichthy- 
osaurus and  Plesiosaurus  were  most  probably  cold- 
blooded animals  and  breathed  atmospheric  air.” 
( Moses  and  Geology,  p.  287). 

Before  entering  upon  a discussion  of  the  fowl, 
we  desire  to  correct  an  error  into  which  the  atheists 
have  led  us  by  classing  the  Ichthyosaurus,  Plesi- 
osaurus, and  other  amphibians  with  the  Pterodactyl 
and  other  winged  creatures  under  the  general  term, 
reptiles;  thus  placing  representatives  of  two  different 
kinds  of  flesh — that  of  the  fish  and  fowl  in  one  class. 
This  is  not  only  unscientific,  but  is  antiscriptural  in 


160 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE 


From  Figuire,  The  World  Before  the  Deluge. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


161 


that  it  conflicts  with  the  Mosaic  Record,  which 
teaches  that  the  fish,  of  which  the  amphibians  are  a 
part,  were  made  to  inhabit  the  waters;  while  the 
fowl,  of  which  the  Pterodactyl  and  other  winged 
creatures  of  the  kind  are  a part,  were  made  to  “fly 
above  the  earth  in  the  open  firmament  of  heaven;” 
this  classification  of  the  atheist  is  also  in  direct  con- 
flict with  Paul’s  teaching  that,  “All  flesh  is  not  the 
same  flesh:  but  there  is  one  kind  of  flesh  of  men, 
another  flesh  of  beasts,  another  of  fishes,  and  an- 
other of  birds.”  (I  Cor.  xv,  39).  Thus,  the  in- 
spired Apostle  teaches  that  there  are  four  different 
kinds  of  flesh  on  the  globe,  and  that  the  flesh  of  the 
fowl  is  as  distinct  from  that  of  the  water  animals  as 
if  they  inhabited  different  planets.  This  being  true, 
it  is  a plain  infringement  upon  God’s  Plan  of  Cre- 
ation to  place  representatives  of  these  two  kinds  of 
flesh  in  one  class  as  reptiles. 

We  also  desire  to  call  attention  to  another  error 
into  which  the  atheists  have  led  us  by  placing  cer- 
tain small  animals — “ creeping  things  ” — belonging  to 
the  flesh  of  the  fish,  and  that  of  the  fowl,  and  that  of 
the  beast,  in  one  class  under  the  general  term,  in- 
sects. This  classification  is  (1)  unscientific,  because 
it  is  false  and  misleading.  (2)  It  is  antiscriptural, 
because  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  Mosaic  Record 
which  teaches  that  these  creatures  were  designed  for 
different  spheres,  a part  of  them  having  been  made  to 
inhabit  the  waters,  another  part  to  fly  in  the  air, 
while  the  remainder  were  made  to  occupy  the  dry 
land;  it  is  also  in  conflict  with  Paul’s  teaching  as  to 
the  four  kinds  of  flesh,  since  it  places  representa- 


162 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


tives  of  three  different  kinds  of  flesh  in  one  class. 
(3)  It  restricts  the  term  fowl  to  the  birds  or  feath- 
ered tribe,  thus  destroying  the  harmony  which  exists 
between  the  Mosaic  Record  and  the  Geological 
Record,  and  brings  them  in  conflict.  The  Mosaic 
Record  teaches  that  the  fowl  preceded  the  land 
animals  on  the  globe,  while  the  Geological  Record 
shows  that  the  land  animals  preceded  the  feathered 
tribe  on  the  globe.  The  first  land  animals  and  the 
first  members  of  the  feathered  tribe  made  their  ap- 
pearance in  what  is  terned  Mesozoic  Time.  Mesozoic 
Time  is  divided  into  three  periods.  “ Beginning 
with  the  earliest  they  are:  1.  The  Triassic  Period; 

2.  The  Jurassic  Period;  3.  The  Critaceous  or  Chalk 
Period.”  (Dana).  The  first  land  animals — repre- 
sentatives of  the  flesh  of  beasts — were  marsupials , 
and  made  their  appearance  on  the  earth  in  the  Tri- 
assic Period;  while  the  first  members  of  the  feath- 
ered tribe  appeared  in  the  Jurassic  Period.  In  de- 
scribing the  life  of  the  Jurassic  Period  as  shown  by 
its  fossil  remains,  Mr.  Dana  says:  “Birds  occur 

fossil  at  Solenhofen,  both  their  bones  and  impres- 
sions of  their  feathers.”  ( Manual  of  Geology , p. 

446).  Thus,  it  is  plain  that,  if  we  restrict  the  Bib- 
lical term  fowl , to  the  feathered  tribe,  we  at  once 
bring  the  Mosaic  Record  in  conflict  with  the  Geolog- 
ical Record.  But  the  Biblical  term  fowl  has  a wider 
significance  and  should  not  be  restricted  to  the 
feathered  tribe,  as  shown  by  the  law  given  Israel,  in 
which  is  named  certain  animals  belonging  to  the 
three  kinds  of  flesh  which  they  might  eat,  and  those 
which  they  should  not  eat.  After  naming  certain 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


163 


animals  belonging  to  the  flesh  of  beasts,  and  those  of 
the  fishes  which  it  was  lawful  for  the  Israelites  to 
eat,  and  others  which  it  was  unlawful  for  them  to 
eat,  the  inspired  writer  names  certain  animals  be- 
longing to  the  flesh  of  the  fowl  which  it  was  lawful 
to  eat,  and  others  which  it  was  unlawful  to  eat; 
among  these  we  find  the  beetle,  the  grasshopper,  the 
bat,  etc.  (See  Levit.  ii,  19,  22) . 

Thus  we  find  that  the  beetle,  the  grasshopper, 
and  the  locust  which,  in  common  parlance  are 
termed  insects,  are  really  fowl;  while  the  bat,  which 
scientists  now  class  with  amphibians  as  a reptile,  is 
also  a fowl.  Thus,  the  Mosaic  law  throws  a flood  of 
light  upon  the  Mosaic  Record  as  to  what  animals  are 
embraced  under  the  term  fowl,  and  indicates  that  all 
winged  creatures  which  “ fly  above  the  earth  ” are 
fowl.  This  includes  the  neuroptera,  coleoptera,  or- 
thoptera,  etc.,  which  scientists  class  as  insects.  The 
neuropters  and  other  small  winged  animals  made 
their  appearance  in  Paleozoic  time,  as  did  the  bat 
family;  the  earliest  representatives  of  the  bat  family 
were  “ huge  reptilian  bats,  veritable  flying  dragons 
with  a spread  of  wings  from  ten  to  twenty  feet.” 
{Alien) . 

Thus  we  are  enabled  (1)  to  appreciate  the  value 
of  Paul’s  teaching  that,  “ There  is  one  kind  of  flesh 
of  men,  another  flesh  of  beasts,  another  of  fishes, 
and  another  of  birds;”  and  to  realize  that  at  the 
close  of  the  sixth  creative  day,  every  creature  on 
the  globe  belonged  to  one  or  the  other  of  these  four 
kinds  of  flesh.  (2)  That  with  the  aid  of  the  Mosaic 
law  we  are  enabled  to  determine  that  the  small 


164 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE 


■From  Figuire,  The  World  Before  the  Deluge. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


165 


winged  animals  which  are  commonly  termed  insects , 
as  well  as  the  large  winged  animals  which  are 
termed  flying  reptiles,  are  included  in  the  biblical 
term  fowl.  (3)  That  the  Geological  Record  sustains 
the  Mosaic  Record  in  its  teaching  that  animal  life 
made  its  first  appearance  on  the  globe  in  the  fish; 
and  that  the  introduction  of  the  fowl  followed  that 
of  the  fish,  thus  preceding  the  land  animals. 

During  those  immense  periods  of  time  described 
in  the  Mosaic  Record  as  the  first,  second,  third,  and 
fourth  days,  the  efforts  of  the  Creator  were  confined 
to  the  handling  of  matter,  in  the  production  of  light, 
the  formation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  the  in- 
troduction of  plant  life,  and  the  formation  of  the 
celestial  bodies.  But  the  fifth  day , unlike  its  prede- 
cessors, is  distinguish  by  the  introduction  on  that 
day,  of  a new  element — a creation — which  appeared 
for  the  first  time  in  the  material  universe  simultane- 
ously and  in  combination  with  matter  as  presented 
in  the  physical  organism  of  the  fish.  The  advent  of 
this  creation  is  described  as  follows:  “And  God  cre- 
ated great  whales,  and  every  living  creature  which 
the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly  after  their 
kind.”  ( Gen.  i,  21) . 

Theologians,  and  such  scientists  as  accept  the 
Bible,  have  agreed  that  this  new  element — this  cre- 
ation— was  animal  life;  this  view  of  animal  life  finds 
no  support  in  either  the  scriptures  or  the  sciences. 
Life — physical  life — is  not  a creation — neither  plant 
life  nor  animal  life,  and  the  Mosaic  Record  does  not 
describe  it  as  such.  But  aside  from  the  teachings 
of  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences,  it  is  easy  to  see 


166 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


that  there  is  not  that  difference  between  plant  life 
and  animal  life,  as  would  justify  us  in  deciding  that 
plant  life  was  simply  a combination  of  the  elements 
inherent  in  matter,  and  that  animal  life  was  a creation 
distinct  from  matter.  Both  plant  life  and  animal 
life  have  their  germs,  “ containing  the  same  elements 
in  the  same  proportions.”  {Dana) . Each  has  its  cir- 
culating fluid;  its  formative  period;  its  youth;  its 
maturity;  its  decline,  and  its  final  dissolution. 

Prof.  Dana  says:  “The  vegetable  and  animal 

kingdoms  are  the  opposite,  but  mutually  dependent 
sides  or  parts  of  one  system  of  life.  {Manual  of  Ge- 
ology, p.  115).  This  being  true,  it  follows  that,  if 
life  was  a new  element  in  the  material  universe,  it 
would  have  been  described  as  a creation,  when  plant 
life,  which  is  simply  “one  side  or  part,”  of  the  “ sys- 
tem ” first  appeared  on  the  earth;  and  since  plant  life, 
the  first  “side  or  part”  of  the  life  system  to  appear 
on  the  earth,  is  not  described  by  the  inspired  writer 
as  a creation,  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  ani- 
mal life,  the  other  “side  or  part”  of  the  “ system,” 
which  afterwards  appeared  was  a creation.  In  other 
words,  if  the  elements  of  life  was  a creation  distinct 
from  matter,  the  inspired  writer  would  have  described 
them  as  such  when  they  first  appeared  in  the  plant. 
That  the  elements  of  life  are  not  creations  distinct 
from  matter,  but  are  merely  elements  inherent  in 
matter,  is  shown  by  the  more  detailed  description  of 
the  origin  of  plants,  given  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
verses  of  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  as  follows: 

“ These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  when  they  were  created,  in  the  day  that 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


167 


the  Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens;  and 
every  plant  of  the  field  before  it  was  in  the  earth, 
and  every  herb  of  the  field  before  it  grew.” 

Thus,  we  are  plainly  taught  that  the  elements 
of  plant  life,  which  are  identical  with  those  of  ani- 
mal life,  are  merely  parts  of  the  original  creation 
— matter;  and  that  they  were  created  in  matter  “in 
the  beginning;”  and  consequently  existed  in  matter 
prior  to  its  formation  into  the  earth.  Thus,  by  cre- 
ating in  the  molecules  of  matter  the  elements  of  life, 
“the  Lord  God”  made  “every  plant  of  the  field  be- 
fore it  was  in  the  earth,  and  every  herb  of  the  field 
before  it  grew.”  Hence,  the  combination  of  these 
original  elements  into  plants  and  animals,  and  the 
first  appearance  of  these  on  the  earth  were  not  crea- 
tions, and  are  not  so  described  by  the  inspired 
writer. 

Further  evidence  that  the  elements  of  life — 
both  plant  and  animal  life — were  not  creations,  but 
mere  formations  out  of  the  original  creation — matter 
— is  shown  by  the  identity  of  language  used  by  the 
Lord  in  commanding  the  earth  and  the  waters  to 
bring  forth  plants  and  animals,  as  follows: 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  sprout- 
age,  the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree  yielding 
fruit,  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself  upon  the 
earth;  and  it  was  so. 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth 
abundantly  the  moving  creature  that  hath  life; 

* * * and  it  was  so.  And  God  said,  Let  the 

earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind; 

* * * and  it  was  so.”  (Gen.  i,  11,  20,  24). 


168 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


What  “was  so”?  Simply  that,  in  obedience  to 
Divine  command  the  earth  and  the  waters  combined 
the  elements  of  life  and  brought  forth  plants  and 
animals. 

Inasmuch  as  the  “ system  of  life  ” is  not  a crea- 
tion, we  must  seek  elsewhere  for  the  new  element — 
the  creation — which  made  its  appearance  on  the 
fifth  creative  day  in  combination  with  matter  as 
presented  in  the  physical  organism  of  the  fish.  To 
accomplish  this,  we  must  first  ascertain  what  charac- 
ter pre-eminently  distinguished  not  only  the  highest, 
but  the  lowest  order  of  animal  from  the  plant.  In 
discussing  this  question,  Prof.  Dana  says:  “Plants 
have  no  consciousness  of  self,  or  of  other  existences; 
animals  are  conscious  of  an  outer  world,  and  even 
the  lowest  show  it  by  avoiding  obstacles.  {Ibid, 

p.  116). 

The  physical  organism  of  the  fish  is  merely  a 
combination  of  the  elements  of  matter;  but  conscious- 
ness is  a something  distinct  from  matter,  as  shown 
by  the  fact  that  it  does  not  exist  in  light,  nor  in  the 
heavens,  nor  in  the  luminaries;  it  was  a new  ele- 
ment which  God  introduced  into  the  material  uni- 
verse on  the  fifth  creative  day.  Hence,  the  inspired 
writer  describes  it  as  a creation.  But  what  is  con- 
sciousness? Mr.  Webster  defines  it  as,  “The  know- 
ledge of  sensations,  or  what  passes  in  one’s  own 
mind.”  ( Unabridged  Dictionary ) . Consciousness 
is,  “ The  power,  faculty,  or  mental  state  of  being 
aware  of  one’s  own  existence,  condition  at  the 
moment,  thoughts,  feelings,  and  actions.”  {Uni- 
versal Dictionary) . 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


169 


Inasmuch  as  consciousness  is  always  associated 
with  mind,  and  is  never  found  in  separation  from  it, 
we  are  forced  to  recognize  it  as  one  of  the  many 
attributes  of  mind;  and  inasmuch  as  the  animal’s 
possession  of  mind  is  the  character  which  pre-emi- 
nently distinguishes  the  animal  from  all  that  pre- 
ceded it  in  the  universe,  we  must  decide  that  this 
new  element — this  creation — which  God  introduced 
into  the  material  universe  on  the  fifth  creative  day, 
in  combination  with  matter  as  presented  in  the 
physical  organisms  of  the  first  animals,  was  mind  in 
its  simplest  form.  Hence  all  animals  possess  mind 
in  greater  or  less  degree. 

Thus,  while  observation  may  acquaint  us  with 
many  of  the  attributes  of  mind  and  its  possibilities, 
the  Bible  alone  gives  us  a knowledge  of  the  origin 
of  mind;  that  it  is  one  of  the  three  creations  of 
which  the  universe  is  composed.  This  invaluable 
knowledge  must  have  been  one  of  man’s  earliest 
possessions,  and  was  doubtless  revealed  by  God  to 
Adam,  who  transmitted  it  in  his  “book  of  precepts” 
to  his  descendants.  But  when  Adam’s  “book”  and 
its  teachings  were  disregarded  and  lost,  this  knowl- 
edge was  also  lost;  and  for  ages  man  remained  in  ig- 
norance upon  this  subject,  until  it  was  restored  to  him 
by  the  inspired  writer  of  Genesis.  It  was  doubtless 
retained  by  those  who  adhered  to  the  Bible,  until 
the  dispersion  of  the  Israelites  from  Judea,  and  the 
descent  of  the  whole  world  of  mankind  into  the 
atheism,  ignorance,  and  superstition  of  the  Dark 
Ages,  which  followed  the  crucifixion  of  the  Saviour, 
when  it  was  again  lost,  or  rather  forgotten,  for  it  re- 


170 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


mained  a matter  of  scriptural  record;  but  for  centu- 
ries its  existence  was  overlooked,  until,  in  the  year 
1898,  we  called  attention  to  it  in  our  first  publi- 
cation.* During  the  many  centuries  in  which  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible  that  there  are  three  crea- 
tions— Matter,  Mind,  and  Soul — were  forgotten  by 
men,  the  mind  creation  and  the  soul  creation 
were  confused,  and  the  terms  mind  and  soul  were 
employed  indiscriminately  to  describe  the  mind;  at 
the  same  time  there  were  many  who  rejected  the 
atheistic  theory  of  man’s  descent  from  the  ape,  and 
insisted  upon  the  scriptural  teaching  that  there  is 
no  kinship  between  man  and  the  animals ; that  man 
possesses  immortality,  while  the  animal  is  merely 
mortal;  that  man  is  an  heir  to  eternity,  while  the 
animal  is  simply  a creature  of  time.  These  people 
desired  to  distinguish  between  man  and  the  animal, 
but  they  had  been  misled  into  believing  that  mind 
and  soul  were  identical;  and  that  the  “mind  or 
soul”  was  the  immortal  part  of  man.  Their  accept- 
ance of  this  error  naturally  led  them  into  the  further 
error  of  supposing  that  mind  was  peculiar  to  man; 
that  he  alone  possessed  the  faculty  of  reason;  and 
that  the  animals  possess  mere  instinct.  But,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  instinct  is  merely  one  of  the  attributes 
of  the  mind,  and  is  common  to  man  and  the  animals. 

This  antiscriptural  theory  that  Mind  and  Soul 
are  identical;  that  the  mind  is  the  immortal  part  of 
man,  leading  as  it  inevitably  does,  to  the  conclusion 
that  mind  is  peculiar  to  man,  and  that  the  animal 

* “ The  Negro  not  the  son  of  Ham,  or,  Man  not  a species  divisible 
into  Races.” 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


171 


possesses  mere  instinct , has  proved  most  pernicious, 
since  it  did  much  toward  destroying  the  distinctions 
which  God  made  between  man  and  the  animals,  and 
led  us  to  accept  into  the  Adamic  family  as  a “ man 
and  a brother”  a creature  whom  God  made  an  ape; 
this  assault  upon  God’s  plan  of  creation  led  to  amal- 
gamation with  this  animal;  and  amalgamation — that 
crime  of  crimes — has  not  only  depopulated  nations, 
but  continents  of  their  Adamic  stock,  and  has 
damned  millions  upon  millions  of  souls. 

The  fallacy  of  this  theory  that  mind  is  peculiar 
to  man,  and  that  animals  possess  mere  instinct,  has 
long  since  been  exposed;  the  most  competent  obser- 
vers are  now  agreed  that  mind  is  common  to  man 
and  the  animals.  Hence,  both  man  and  the  animals 
possess  the  faculty  of  reason , the  difference  between 
them  in  this  respect  being  merely  one  of  degree. 

In  discussing  this  subject,  Mr.  Darwin  says: 

“ Of  all  the  faculties  of  the  human  mind,  it  will, 
I presume,  be  admitted  that  Reason  stands  at  the 
summit.  Only  a few  persons  now  dispute  that  ani- 
mals possess  some  power  of  reasoning.  Animals 
may  constantly  be  seen  to  pause,  deliberate  and  re- 
solve. It  is  a significant  fact,  that  the  more  the 
habits  of  any  particular  animal  are  studied  by  a nat- 
uralist, the  more  he  attributes  to  reason  and  the  less 
to  unlearned  instincts.  * * * No  doubt  it  is 

often  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  power  of 
reason  and  that  of  instinct.  For  instance,  Dr.  Hays, 
in  his  work  on  ‘ The  Open  Polar  Sea,’  repeatedly  re- 
marks that  his  dogs,  instead  of  continuing  to  draw 
sledges  in  / compact  body,  diverged  and  separated 


172 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


when  they  came  to  thin  ice,  so  that  their  weight 
might  be  more  evenly  distributed.  This  was  often  the 
first  warning  which  the  travelers  received  that  the 
ice  was  becoming  thin  and  dangerous.  Now,  did 
the  dog  act  thus  from  the  experience  of  each  indi- 
dual, or  from  the  example  of  the  older  and  "wiser 
dogs,  or  from  an  inherited  habit,  that  is  from  in- 
stinct? :::  :::  :::  We  can  only  judge  by  the  cir- 

cumstances under  which  actions  are  performed, 
whether  they  are  due  to  instincts,  or  to  reason,  or  to 
the  mere  association  of  ideas;  this  latter  principle, 
however,  is  intimately  connected  with  reason.  A 
curious  case  is  given  by  Professor  Mobius,  of  a pike, 
separated  by  a plate  of  glass  from  an  adjoining  aqua- 
rium stocked  with  fish,  and  who  often  dashed  him- 
self with  such  violence  against  the  glass  in  trying  to 
catch  the  other  fishes,  that  he  was  sometimes  com- 
pletely stunned.  The  pike  went  on  thus  for  three 
month,  but  at  last  learned  caution,  and  ceased  to  do 
so.  The  plate  of  glass  was  then  removed,  but  the 
pike  would  not  attack  these  particular  fishes,  though 
he  would  devour  others  which  were  afterwards  intro- 
duced; so  strongly  was  the  idea  of  a violent  shock 
associated  in  his  feeble  mind  with  the  attempt  on 
his  former  neighbors.  If  a savage,  who  had  never 
seen  a large  plate-glass  window,  were  to  dash  him- 
self even  once  against  it  he  would  for  a long  time 
afterwards  associate  a shock  with  a window  frame; 
but  very  differently  from  the  pike;  he  would  prob- 
ably reflect  on  the  nature  of  the  impediment,  and  be 
cautious  under  analogous  circumstances.  Now,  with 
monkeys,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  a painful  or  dis- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


173 


agreeable  impression,  from  an  action  once  per- 
formed, is  sometimes  sufficient  to  prevent  the  ani- 
mal from  repeating  it.  If  we  attribute  this  differ- 
ence between  the  monkey  and  the  pike  solely  to  the 
association  of  ideas  being  so  much  stronger  and 
more  persistent  in  one  than  the  other,  though  the 
pike  often  received  much  the  more  serious  injury, 
can  we  maintain  in  the  case  of  man  that  a similar 
difference  implies  the  possession  of  a fundamently 
different  mind? 

“Houzeau  relates*  that,  while  crossing  a wide 
and  arid  plain  in  Texas,  his  two  dogs  suffered  greatly 
from  thirst,  and  that  between  thirty  and  forty  times 
they  rushed  down  the  hollows  to  search  for  water. 
These  hollows  were  not  valleys,  and  there  were  no 
trees  in  them,  or  any  other  difference  in  vegetation; 
and,  as  they  were  absolutely  dry,  there  could  have 
been  no  smell  of  damp  earth.  The  dogs  behaved  as 
if  they  knew  that  a dip  in  the  ground  offered  them 
the  best  chance  of  finding  water,  and  Houzeau  has 
often  witnessed  the  same  behavior  in  other  animals. 

“ I have  seen,  as  I dare  say  have  others,  that  when 
a small  object  is  thrown  on  the  ground  beyond  the 
reach  of  one  of  the  elephants  in  the  zoological  gar- 
dens, he  blows  through  his  trunk  on  the  ground 
beyond  the  object  so  that  the  current  reflected  on 
all  sides  may  drive  the  object  within  his  reach. 
Again,  a well-known  ethnologist,  Mr.  Westropp,  in- 
forms me  that  he  observed  in  Vienna  a bear  deliber- 
ately making  with  his  paw  a current  in  some  water, 
which  was  close  to  the  bars  of  his  cage,  so  as  to 

* “ Faculites  Mentales,  1S72.  tom.  ii,  p.  265.’" 


174 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EVE. 


draw  a piece  of  floating  bread  within  his  reach. 
These  actions  of  the  elephant  and  bear  can  hardly 
be  attributed  to  instinct,  as  they  would  be  of  little 
use  to  an  animal  in  a state  of  nature.  Now,  what  is 
the  difference  between  such  actions,  when  performed 
by  an  uncultivated  man,  and  by  one  of  the  higher 
animals? 

“The  savage  ana  the  dog  have  often  found 
water  at  a low  level,  and  the  coincidence  under  such 
circumstances  has  become  associated  in  their  minds. 
A cultivated  man  would  perhaps  make  some  general 
proposition  on  the  subject;  but  from  all  we  know  of 
savages,  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  they  would 
do  so,  and  a dog  certainly  would  not.  But  a savage, 
as  well  as  a dog,  would  search  in  the  same  w'ay, 
though  frequently  disappointed,  and  in  both  it  seems 
to  be  equally  an  act  of  reason,  whether  or  not  any 
general  proposition  on  the  subject  is  consciously 
placed  before  the  mind.  The  same  would  apply  to 
the  elephant,  and  the  bear  making  currents  in  the 
water.  The  savage  certainly  would  neither  know 
nor  care  by  what  law  the  desired  movements  were 
affected;  yet  his  act  would  be  guided  by  a rude  pro- 
cess of  reasoning,  as  surely  as  would  be  a philoso- 
pher in  his  longest  chain  of  deductions.  There 
would  no  doubt  be  this  difference  between  him  and 
one  of  the  higher  animals;  that  he  would  take  no- 
tice of  much  slighter  circumstances  and  conditions, 
and  would  observe  any  connection  between  them 
after  much  less  experience,  and  this  would  be  of 
paramount  importance.  I kept  a daily  record  of  the 
actions  of  one  of  my  infants,  and  when  it  was  about 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


175 


eleven  months  old,  and  before  he  could  speak  a sin- 
gle word,  I was  continually  struck  with  the  greater 
quickness  with  which  all  sorts  of  objects  and  sounds 
were  associated  together  in  his  mind,  compared  with 
that  of  the  most  intelligent  dogs  I ever  knew.  But 
the  higher  animals  differ  in  exactly  the  same  way 
in  this  power  of  association  from  those  low  in  the 
scale,  such  as  the  pike,  as  well  as  in  that  of  drawing 
inferences  and  of  observation. 

“ The  promptings  of  reason,  after  very  short  ex- 
perience, are  well  shown  by  the  following  actions  of 
American  monkeys,  which  stand  low  in  their  order. 
Rengger,  a most  careful  observer,  states  that  when 
he  first  gave  eggs  to  his  monkeys  in  Paraguay  they 
smashed  them  and  thus  lost  much  of  their  con- 
tents; afterward  they  gently  hit  one  end  against 
some  hard  body,  and  picked  off  the  bits  of  shell 
with  their  fingers.  After  cutting  themselves  only 
once  with  any  sharp  tool,  they  would  not  touch  it 
again,  or  they  would  handle  it  with  the  greatest  cau- 
tion. Lumps  of  sugar  were  often  given  them  wrapped 
up  in  paper;  and  Rengger  sometimes  put  a live  wasp 
in  the  paper,  so  that  in  hastily  unfolding  it  they  got 
stung;  after  this  had  once  happened  they  always  first 
held  the  packet  to  their  ears  to  detect  any  movement 
within.  * * * Mr.  Belt,  in  his  most  interesting- 

work  {The  Naturalist  in  Nicaragua,  1874,  p.  119), 
likewise  describes  various  actions  of  a tamed  Cebus, 
which,  I think,  clearly  show  that  this  animal  pos- 
sessed some  reasoning  power. 

“The  following  cases  relate  to  dogs:  Mr.  Col- 

quhoun  winged  two  wild  ducks,  which  fell  on  the 


176 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


farther  side  of  a stream;  his  retriever  tried  to  bring 
over  both  at  once,  but  could  not  succeed;  she  then, 
though  never  before  known  to  ruffle  a feather,  de- 
liberately killed  one,  brought  over  the  other,  and  re- 
turned for  the  dead  bird.  Col.  Hutchinson  relates 
that  two  partridges  were  shot  at  once,  one  being 
killed,  the  other  wounded;  the  latter  ran  awaj’  and 
was  caught  by  the  retriever,  who  on  her  return 
came  across  the  dead  bird;  ‘she  stopped,  evidently 
greatly  puzzled,  and  after  one  or  two  trials,  finding 
she  could  not  take  it  up  without  permitting  the  es- 
cape of  the  winged  bird,  she  considered  a moment, 
then  deliberately  murdered  it  by  giving  it  a severe 
crunch,  and  afterward  brought  away  both  together. 
This  was  the  only  known  instance  of  her  ever  having 
willfully  injured  any  game.’  ( Dog  Breaking,  1850, 
p.  46) . Here  we  have  reason,  though  not  quite  per- 
fect, for  the  retriever  might  have  brought  the 
wounded  bird  first  and  then  returned  for  the  dead 
one,  as  in  the  case  of  the  two  wild  ducks.  I give  the 
above  cases  as  resting  on  the  evidence  of  two  inde- 
pendent witnesses,  and  because  in  both  cases  the  re- 
trievers, after  deliberation,  broke  through  a habit 
which  is  inherited  by  them  (that  of  not  killing  the 
game  retrieved) , and  because  they  show  how  strong 
their  reasoning  faculty  must  have  been  to  overcome 
a fixed  habit, 

“ I will  conclude  by  quoting  a remark  by  the  il- 
lustrious Humboldt:  ‘The  muleteers  in  South 

America  say,  I will  not  give  you  the  mule  whose 
step  is  easiest,  but  la  mas  racional — the  one  that  rea- 
sons best;’  and,  as  he  adds,  ‘this  popular  expression, 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


177 


dictated  by  long  experience,  combats  the  system  of 
animated  machines  better  perhaps  than  all  the  argu- 
ments of  speculative  philosophy.’  Nevertheless 
some  writers  even  yet  deny  that  the  higher  animals 
possess  a trace  of  reason;  and  they  endeavor  to  ex- 
plain away  by  what  appears  to  be  mere  verbage,  all 
such  facts  as  those  above  given. 

“ It  has,  I think,  now  been  shown  that  man  and 
the  higher  animals,  especially  the  primates,  have 
some  instincts  in  common.  All  have  the  same 
senses,  intuitions  and  sensations — similar  passions, 
affections,  and  emotions;  even  the  more  complex 
ones,  such  as  jealousy,  suspicion,  emulation,  grati- 
tude, and  magnanimity;  they  practice  deceit  and 
are  revengeful;  they  are  sometimes  susceptible  to 
ridicule,  and  even  have  a sense  of  humor;  they  feel 
wonder  and  curiosity;  they  possess  the  same  facul- 
ties of  imitation,  attention,  deliberation,  choice,  mem- 
ory, imagination,  the  association  of  ideas  and  reason, 
though  in  very  different  degrees.  The  individuals 
of  the  same  species  graduate  in  intellect  from  abso- 
lute imbecility  to  high  excellence.  They  are  also 
liable  to  insanity,  though  far  less  often  than  in  the 
case  of  man.  * * * 

“ It  has  often  been  said  that  no  animal  uses  any 
tool;  but  the  chimpanzee  in  a state  of  nature  cracks 
a native  fruit,  somewhat  like  a walnut,  with  a stone. 
Rengger  easily  taught  an  American  monkey  thus  to 
break  open  hard  palm  nuts;  and  afterwards  of  its 
own  accord  it  used  stones  to  open  other  kinds  of 
nuts,  as  well  as  boxes.  It  thus  also  removed  the 
soft  rind  of  fruit  that  had  a disagreeable  flavor. 


178 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Another  monkey  was  taught  to  open  the  lid  of  a 
large  box  with  a stick,  and  afterwards  it  used  the 
stick  as  a lever  to  move  heavy  bodies;  and  I have 
myself  seen  a young  orang  put  a stick  into  a cre- 
vice, slip  his  hand  to  the  other  end,  and  use  it  in  a 
proper  manner  as  a lever.  The  tamed  elephants  in 
India  are  well  known  to  break  off  branches  of  trees 
and  use  them  to  drive  away  the  flies;  and  this  same 
act  has  been  observed  in  an  elephant  in  a state  of 
nature.  I have  seen  a young  orang,  when  she 
thought  she  was  going  to  be  whipped,  cover  and 
protect  herself  with  a blanket  of  straw.  In  these 
several  cases  stones  and  sticks  were  employed  as 
implements;  but  they  are  likewise  used  as  weapons. 
Brehm  (‘ Thierleben,’  B.  i,  s.  79,  82)  states,  on  the 
authority  of  the  well-known  traveler  Schimper, 
that  in  Abyssinia,  when  the  baboons  belonging  to 
one  species  ( C . gelada ) descend  in  troops  from  the 
mountains  to  plunder  the  fields,  they  sometimes  en- 
counter troops  of  another  species  ( C . hamadryas), 
and  then  a fight  ensues.  The  geladas  roll  down  great 
stones,  which  the  Hamadryas  try  to  avoid,  and  then 
both  species,  making  a great  uproar,  rush  furiously 
against  each  other.  Brehm,  when  accompanying 
the  Duke  of  Coburg-Gotha,  aided  in  an  attack  with 
fire-arms  on  a troop  of  baboons  in  the  pass  of  Mensa 
in  Abyssinia.  The  baboons  in  return  rolled  so  many 
stones  down  the  mountain,  some  as  large  as  a man’s 
head,  that  the  attackers  had  to  beat  a hasty  retreat, 
and  the  pass  was  actually  closed  for  a time  against 
the  caravan.  It  deserves  notice  that  these  baboons 
thus  acted  in  concert.  Mr.  Wallace  (‘The  Malay 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


179 


Archipelago,’  Vol.  i,  1869,  p.  87),  on  three  occasions 
saw  female  orangs,  accompanied  by  their  young, 
breaking  off  branches  and  the  great  spiney  fruit  of 
the  Durian  tree,  with  every  appearance  of  rage; 
causing  such  a shower  of  missies  as  effectually  kept 
us  from  approaching  too  near  the  tree.  As  I have 
repeatedly  seen,  a chimpanzee  will  throw  any  object 
at  hand  at  a person  who  offends  him.  * * * 

“ In  the  Zoological  Gardens,  a monkey,  which 
had  weak  teeth,  used  to  break  open  nuts  with  a stone; 
and  I was  assured  by  the  keepers  that  after  using 
the  stone  he  hid  it  in  the  straw,  and  would  not  let 
any  other  monkey  touch  it.  Here,  then,  we  have 
the  idea  of  property;  but  this  idea  is  common  to 
every  dog  with  a bone,  and  to  most  or  all  birds  with 
their  nests.”  {The  Descent  of  Man , pp.  84,  85,  86, 
87,  etc). 

After  referring  to  the  resemblances  between 
the  anatomy  of  man  and  the  superior  order  of  apes, 
Prof.  Quatrefags  says:  “Passions,  sentiments  and 

characters  establish  between  ourselves  and  animals 
equally  close  relations.  The  animal  loves  and  hates; 
we  recognize  in  it  irritability  and  jealousy;  unweary- 
ing patience,  and  immutable  confidence.  In  our 
domestic  species,  these  differences  are  more  appar- 
ent, or  perhaps  we  only  notice  them  more  closely. 
Who  has  not  known  dogs  which  have  been  playful 
or  snappish,  affectionate  or  savage,  cowardly  or 
courageous,  friendly  with  everybody,  or  exclusive 
in  their  affections. 

“Again,  man  has  true  instincts,  were  it  only 
that  of  sociability.  Faculties,  however,  of  this  order, 


180 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


which  are  so  fully  developed  in  certain  animals,  in 
man  are  evidently  very  much  reduced  in  comparison 
with  the  intelligence. 

“The  relative  development  of  the  latter  cer- 
tainly establishes  an  enormous  difference  between 
man  and  animal.  It  is  not,  however,  the  intensity 
of  a phenomenon  which  gives  value  to  it  from  our 
point  of  view,  but  simply  its  nature.  The  question 
is  whether  human  intelligence  and  animal  intelli- 
gence can  be  considered  as  of  the  same  order. 

“As  a rule,  philosophers,  psychologists,  and 
theologians  have  replied  in  the  negative,  and  natur- 
alists in  the  affirmative.  This  opposition  can  be 
easily  understood.  The  former  make  the  human 
mind,  considered  as  an  indivisible  whole,  their  prin- 
cipal study,  and  attribute  to  it  all  our  faculties. 
Unable  to  deny  the  similarity,  external  at  least,  be- 
tween certain  animal  and  human  acts,  and  yet  being 
anxious  to  clearly  distinguish  man  from  the  brute, 
they  have  given  to  the  acts  different  interpretations 
as  they  have  been  performed  by  one  or  the  other. 
Naturalists  have  regarded  the  phenomena  more 
closely  without  thinking  of  anything  else,  and  when 
they  have  seen  the  animals  behave  in  the  same 
manner  as  they  themselves  would  have  done  under 
the  given  circumstances,  they  have  concluded  that 
the  motives  must  be  fundamentally  the  same.  I 
must  ask  permission  to  remain  a naturalist,  and  to 
recall  some  facts,  and  regard  them  from  this  point 
of  view. 

“ The  theologians  themselves  allow  that  the  ani- 
mal possesses  sensation,  formation,  and  association  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


181 


images,  imagination,  and  passion.  (R.  P.  de  Bonniot) . 
They  allow  that  the  animal  feels  the  relation  of  fitness 
or  of  unfitness  between  sensible  objects  and  his  own 
senses;  that  it  experiences  sensible  attractions  and 
repulsions,  and  acts  perfectly  in  consequence,  and 
that  in  this  sense  the  animal  reasons  and  judges. 
(l’Adde  A.  Lecompte) . Therefore,  they  add,  we 
cannot  doubt  but  that  the  animal  possesses  a principle 
superior  to  that  of  mere  matter,  and  we  may  even  give 
it  the  name  of  mind.  (R.  P.  Bonniot) . But  in  spite 
of  all,  theologians  and  philosophers  maintain  that  the 
animal  cannot  be  intelligent,  because  it  has  neither 
innate  sense , consciousness , nor  reason. 

“Let  us  leave  for  a moment  the  last  term,  with 
which  the  idea  of  phenomena  which  we  shall  pres- 
ently discuss,  is  connected  in  the  mind  of  our  op- 
ponents. Is  it  true  that  animals  are  wanting  in 
innate  sense,  and  are  not  conscious  of  their  actions? 
Upon  what  facts  of  observation  does  this  opinion 
rest?  We  each  one  of  us  feel  that  we  possess  this 
sense,  that  we  enjoy  this  faculty.  By  means  of 
speech  we  can  convey  to  another  the  results  of  our 
personal  experience.  But  this  source  of  informa- 
tion is  wanting  when  we  come  to  deal  with  animals. 
Neither  in  them  nor  in  ourselves  are  innate  sense 
and  consciousness  revealed  to  the  outer  world  by 
any  special  characteristic  movement.  It  is,  there- 
fore, only  by  interpreting  these  movements,  and  by 
judging  from  ourselves,  that  we  can  form  an  idea  of 
the  motives  from  which  the  animal  acts. 

“Proceeding  in  this  manner,  it  seems  to  me  im- 
possible to  refuse  to  allow  animals  a certain  amount 


182 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EVE. 


of  consciousness  of  their  actions.  Doubtless  they 
do  not  form  such  an  exact  estimate  of  them,  as  even 
an  illiterate  man  can  do.  ■ But  we  may  be  very  cer- 
tain that  when  a cat  is  trying  to  catch  sparrows  on 
the  level  ground,  and  creeps  along  the  hollows,  avail- 
ing herself  of  every  tuft  of  grass,  however  small,  she 
knows  what  she  is  about,  just  as  well  as  the  hunter 
who  glides  in  a crouching  attitude  from  one  bush  to 
another.  We  may  be  equally  sure  that  kittens  and 
puppies,  when  they  fight,  growl  and  bite  without 
hurting  each  other,  know  very  well  that  they  are 
playing,  and  not  in  earnest. 

“ I must  beg  permission  to  relate  the  remem- 
brance of  my  struggles  with  a mastiff  of  pure  breed, 
and  which  had  attained  full  size,  remaining,  however, 
very  young  in  character.  We  were  very  good  friends, 
and  often  played  together.  As  soon  as  ever  I as- 
sumed an  attitude  of  defense  before  him,  he  would 
leap  upon  me  with  every  appearance  of  fury,  seizing 
in  his  mouth  the  arm  which  I had  used  as  a shield. 
He  might  have  marked  my  arm  deeply  at  the  first 
11  onset,  but  he  never  pressed  it  in  a manner  that  could 
inflict  the  slightest  pain.  I often  seized  him  by  his 
lower  jaw  with  my  hand,  but  he  never  used  his 
teeth  so  as  to  bite  me.  And  yet  the  next  moment 
the  same  teeth  would  indent  a piece  of  wood  I tried 
to  tear  away  from  them. 

“ This  animal  evidently  knew  what  it  was  doing 
when  it  feigned  the  passion  precisely  opposite  to  that 
which  it  really  felt;  when,  even  in  the  excitement  of 
play,  it  retained  sufficient  mastery  over  its  move- 
ments to  avoid  hurting  me.  In  reality  it  played  a 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


183 


part  in  a comedy,  and  we  cannot  act  without-  being- 
conscious  of  it.”  ( The  Human  Species,  pp.  18,  19, 
20,21). 

Mr.  Darwin  relates  the  following  incident  to 
which  Sir  Andrew  Smith,  a zoologist  “ of  scrupulous 
accuracy,”  was  an  eye  witness:  “ At  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope  an  officer  had  often  plagued  a certain  baboon, 
and  the  animal,  seeing  him  approaching  one  Sunday 
for  parade,  poured  water  into  a hole  and  hastily 
made  some  thick  mud,  which  he  skillfully  dashed 
over  the  officer  as  he  passed  by,  to  the  amusement  of 
many  bystanders.  For  long  afterward  the  baboon 
rejoiced  and  triumphed  whenever  he  saw  his  vic- 
tim.” {Ibid,  p.  78) . 

Had  this  officer  “plagued”  some  ten  year-old 
boy,  who  retaliated  upon  him  as  the  baboon  did, 
would  we  have  attributed  the  boy’s  actions  to  in- 
stinct f When  man  and  the  animal  perform  the 
same  actions  under  the  same  circumstances,  how 
unreasonable  it  is  in  us  to  decide  that  the  former 
was  actuated  by  reason,  while  the  latter  was  guided 
by  mere  instinct. 

In  discussing  the  acts  of  the  gibbon  ape,  Prof. 
Huxley  says:  “Duvancel  affirms  that  he  has  seen 
the  females  carry  their  young  to  the  water  side  and 
there  wash  their  faces.  They  are  gentle  and  affec- 
tionate in  captivity  — full  of  tricks  and  pettishness, 
like  spoiled  children,  and  yet  not  devoid  of  a certain 
conscience,  as  an  anecdote  told  by  Mr.  Bennett 
( Wanderings  in  New  South  Wales,  p.  156),  will 
show.  It  would  appear  that  his  gibbon  had  a pecu- 
liar inclination  for  disarranging  things  in  the  cabin. 


184 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Among  these  articles  a piece  of  soap  would  especi- 
ally attract  his  notice,  and  for  the  removal  of  this  he 
had  been  once  or  twice  scolded.  1 One  morning/ 
says  Mr.  Bennett,  ‘ I was  writing,  the  ape  being 
present  in  the  cabin,  when  casting  my  eyes  towards 
him,  I saw  the  little  fellow  taking  the  soap.  I 
watched  him  without  his  perceiving  that  I did  so; 
and  he  occasionally  would  cast  a furtive  glance  to- 
wards the  place  where  I sat.  I pretended  to  write; 
he,  seeing  me  busily  occupied,  took  the  soap,  and 
moved  away  with  it  in  his  paw.  When  he  had 
walked  half  the  length  of  the  cabin,  I spoke  quietljq 
without  frightening  him.  The  instant  he  found  I 
saw  him  he  walked  back  again,  and  deposited  the 
soap  nearly  in  the  same  place  from  whence  he  had 
taken  it.  There  was  certainly  more  than  instinct  in 
that  action;  he  evidently  betrayed  a consciousness 
of  having  done  wrong  both  by  his  first  and  last  ac- 
tion — and  what  is  reason  if  that  is  not  an  exercise 
of  it?”  ( Man's  Place  in  Nature,  pp.  43,  44,  45) . 

The  facts  above  cited  fully  sustain  our  conten- 
tion that  reason , one  of  the  loftiest  faculties  of  the 
mind,  is  possessed  by  the  animals  in  greater  or  less 
degree;  that  mind  is  a creation  distinct  from  matter; 
that  mind  made  its  appearance  in  combination  with 
matter  in  the  physical  organization  of  the  fish  on 
the  “ fifth  day  ” of  the  cosmogonic  week.  The  advo- 
cates of  the  modern  theory,  that  reason  is  peculiar  to 
man,  also  insist  that  conscience,  that  ever  alert  moni- 
tor that  rebukes  us  for  our  misdeeds,  is  also  peculiar 
to  man;  but  conscience,  like  reason,  is  simply  one 
of  the  attributes  of  mind,  and  the  animals  possess  it 


THE  TEMPTEK  OE  EYE. 


185 


in  a greater  or  less  degree,  as  shown  by  the  follow- 
ing incident,  quoted  in  Anthropology  for  the  People . 
The  author  says:  “A  late  report  of  something  like 
the  conscience  of  the  human  being  in  an  animal  is 
the  following,  for  which  the  New  York  Commercial 
Advertiser , June,  1889  is  responsible: 

“ Spring  brings  the  turnpike  musicians  and 
monkeys  in  great  numbers.  While  one  pair  of  these 
were  giving  a concert  on  Main  Street  in  Carbondale, 
Pa.,  to  a crowd  of  youngters  and  two  inebriate  coun- 
trymen, one  of  the  men  gave  the  monkey  a cent, 
for  which  it  doffed  its  cap  jauntily.  Then  the  coun- 
tryman teased  the  little  animal  until  at  last  it  bur- 
ied its  teeth  in  the  man’s  finger  to  the  bone.  When 
the  blood  gushed  from  the  wound  the  monkey  looked 
regretfully  at  the  finger,  then  into  the  man’s  face, 
and  handed  back  his  money.  No  amount  of  per- 
suasion would  induce  the  penitent  animal  to  again 
accept  the  coin,  though  it  was  repeatedly  offered, 
and  though  he  accepted  money  from  others  all 
around  him.” 

Commenting  on  the  actions  of  this  little  monkey 
in  returning  his  victim’s  money,  the  author  of  An- 
thropology for  the  People , says:  “ We  venture  the  as- 
sertion that  a more  satisfactory  proof  of  the  exist- 
ence of  conscience  cannot  be  found  among  African 
savages.”  In  this  opinion  we  heartily  concur.  The 
conscience-smitten  little  animal  not  only  manifested 
regret  for  the  injury  he  had  inflicted  on  his  perse- 
cutor, but  did  all  in  his  power  to  make  compensa- 
tion. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


Cattle,  Creeping  Things,  and  Beasts — 
the  Ape  a Biped. 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the 
living  creature  after  his  kind,  cattle,  and  creeping 
things  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind,  and  it 
was  so. 

“And  God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth  after  his 
kind,  and  cattle  after  their  kind,  and  every  creeping 
thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  after  his  kind: 
and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.”  (Gen.  i,  24,  25). 

It  will  be  observed  that  God  treats  the  land 
animals,  with  many  of  which  man  is  to  be  closely  as- 
sociated in  his  daily  life,  very  differently  from  the 
manner  in  which  He  treats  the  “fowls  of  the  air”  or 
the  “fish  of  the  sea,”  in  that  He  divides  them  into 
three  classes:  cattle , creeping  things , and  beasts.  This 
classification  is  observed  throughout  the  scriptures. 
It  will  also  be  observed  that  God  commanded  the 
earth  to  “bring  forth”  the  land  animals  in  the  order 
stated:  (1)  cattle,  (2)  creeping  things,  (3)  beasts. 

Modern  theologians,  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  who 
have  noticed  this  peculiar  classification,  and  have 
attempted  to  explain  it,  consider  that  the  broad  dis- 
tinction which  God  makes  between  the  cattle  and  the 
beasts,  is  due  to  the  difference  in  the  food  upon  which 
these  animals  subsist;  that  the  cattle  are  herbivorous 
animals,  and  the  beasts  are  carnivorous  animals. 

186 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


187 


Prof.  Guyot  says:  “In  the  tertiary  the  herbivo- 
rous animals,  domesticated  by  man,  are  named  cat- 
tle; while  the  others,  including  the  carnivorous,  are 
called  wild  beasts,  and  the  smaller  ones,  the  creep- 
ing things.”  ( Creation , p.  119). 

Chancellor  Dawson  says:  “1.  The  first  tribe  of 
animals  noticed  here  is  named  b’hemcih,  “cattle”  in 
our  version,  and  in  the  Septuagint  “ quadrupeds,”  in 
one  of  the  verses,  and  “cattle”  in  the  other.  Both 
of  these  senses  are  of  common  occurrence  in  the 
scriptures,  cattle  or  domesticated  animals  being  us- 
ually designated  by  this  word;  while  in  other  pas- 
sages, as  in  I Kings  iv,  33,  where  Solomon  is  said  to 
have  written  a treatise  on  “ beasts,  fowls,  creeping 
things  and  fishes,”  it  appears  to  include  all  the 
mammalia.  Notwithstanding  this  wide  range  of 
meaning,  however,  there  are  passages,  and  these  of 
the  greatest  authority  in  reference  to  our  present 
subject,  in  which  it  strictly  means  the  herbivorous 
mammals,  and  which  show  that  when  it  was  neces- 
sary to  distinguish  these  from  the  predaceous  or  car- 
nivorous tribes,  this  term  was  specially  employed. 
In  Leviticus  xi,  22-27,  we  have  a specification  of  all 
the  Behemoth  that  might  and  might  not  be  used  for 
food.  It  includes  all  the  true  ruminants,  with  the 
coney,  the  hare,  and  the  hog,  animals  of  the  rodent 
and  pachydermatous  orders.  The  carnivorous  quad- 
rupeds are  designated  by  a different  generic  term. 
In  this  chapter  of  Leviticus,  therefore,  which  con- 
tains the  only  approach  to  a system  in  natural  his- 
tory to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  b’hemah  is  strictly  a 
synonym  for  herbivora,  including  especially  ungu- 


188 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


latis  and  rodents.  That  this  is  its  proper  meaning 
here  is  confirmed  by  the  considerations  that  in  this 
place  it  can  denote  but  a part  of  the  land  quadru- 
peds, and  that  the  idea  of  cattle  or  domesticated  ani- 
mals would  be  an  anachronism.  At  the  same  time 
there  need  be  no  objection  to  the  view  that  the 
special  capacity  of  ruminants  and  other  herbivora 
for  domestication  is  connected  with  the  use  of  the 
the  word  in  this  place. 

“2.  The  word  remes,  ‘creeping  things’  in  our 
version,  as  we  have  already  shown,  is  a very  general 
term,  refering  to  the  power  of  motion  possessed  by 
animals,  especially  on  the  surface  of  the  ground.  It 
here  in  all  probabilit}^  refers  to  the  additional  types 
of  terrestrial  reptiles,  and  other  creatures  lower  than 
the  mammals  introduced  in  this  period. 

“The  compound  term  {hay’th-eretz)  which  I 
have  ventured  to  render  ‘ carnivora,’  is  literally  ani- 
mal of  the  land;  but  though  thus  general  in  its  mean- 
ing, it  is  here  evidently  intended  to  denote  a partic- 
ular tribe  of  animals  inhabiting  the  land,  and  not  in- 
cluded in  the  scope  of  the  two  words  already  noticed. 
In  other  parts  of  scripture  this  term  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  a ‘ wild  beast.’  In  a few  places,  like  the  other 
terms  already  noticed,  it  is  used  of  all  kinds  of 
animals,  but  that  above  stated  is  its  general  mean- 
ing; and  perfectly  accords  with  the  requirements  of 
the  passage. 

“The  creation  of  the  sixth  day  therefore  in- 
cludes— first,  the  herbivorous  mammalia;  second, 
a variety  of  terrestrial  reptilia,  and  the  other  lower 
forms  not  included  in  the  work  of  the  previous  day; 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


189 


third,  the  carnivorous  mammalia.”  ( The  Origin  of 
the  World , pp.  231,  232). 

We  agree  with  Chancellor  Dawson  upon  certain 
points  in  his  argument,  and  disagree  with  him  upon 
other  points,  as  follows: 

1.  We  agree  with  him  that  the  land  animals  are 
divided  into  three  classes,  translated  in  the  English 
version  of  the  Bible,  “cattle,”  “creeping  things,” 
and  “ beasts.” 

2.  That  remes,  translated  “ creeping  things  ” in 
our  version,  describes  a variety  of  animal  forms 
which  made  their  appearance  on  the  earth,  inter- 
mediate between  the  cattle  and  the  beasts. 

3.  We  agree  with  him  that  the  term  “beast  of 
the  earth,”  in  our  version,  is  not  in  this  case  “gen- 
eral in  its  meaning;”  that  is,  it  is  not  a general  term 
intended  to  include  all  the  land  animals. 

4.  We  disagree  with  him  in  his  opinion  that 
the  term  “beast  of  the  earth”  in  our  version,  is 
“ intended  to  denote  a particular  tribe  of  animals  in- 
habiting the  land.”  On  the  contrary,  we  hold,  and 
shall  hereafter  show,  that  the  term  “ beast  of  the 
earth,”  denotes  a particular  member  of  a tribe  of  ani- 
mals after  whose  kind — the  beast  kind — it  was  made; 
and  that  this  class  of  animals — the  beast  kind  are  as 
distinct  from  the  “ cattle,”  as  they  are  from  the 
“ creeping  things.”  We  shall  also  show  that  these 
three  classes  of  animals  — “ cattle,”  “ creeping 
things,”  and  “beasts,”  made  their  appearance  on 
the  earth  in  the  order  stated. 

5.  We  disagree  with  him  in  his  opinion  that 
the  “ cattle  ” are  herbivorous  animals,  and  that  the 


190 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


“ beasts  ” are  carnivorous  animals,  for  the  following 
reasons:  (1)  Because  there  are  numerous  animals — 
some  among  our  domesticated  animals — which  are 
both  herbivorous  and  carnivorous , that  is,  omnivorous; 
consequently  they  cannot  be  classed  with  either  the 
herbivores  or  the  carinvores,  and  all  attempts  to  do  so 
would  beget  endless  disorder  and  confusion,  which 
is  the  opposite  of  that  perfect  order  and  harmony 
which  characterizes  all  of  God’s  works.  (2)  Because 

it  brings  the  Mosaic  Record  with  its  teaching  that 
the  “ cattle  ” were  the  first  land  animals  to  appear, 
in  direct  conflict  with  the  Geological  Record  and  its 
teaching,  that  the  first  land  animals  to  appear  on 
the  earth  were  insect  eating  marsupials  ( Droma - 
therium  sylvestre) — carnivores.  (3)  The  error  in 

which  Mr.  Dawson  and  his  fellow  theologians,  both 
Jew  and  Gentile,  have  fallen  on  this  subject  is  clear- 
ly shown  by  the  presence  of  these  animals  which 
are  both  herbivorous  and  carnivorous , that  is,  omniv- 
orous, and  consequently  cannot  be  fairly  classed  as 
herbivores  or  carnivores. 

6.  We  insist  that  the  distinction  which  God 
makes  between  the  “ cattle  ” and  the  “ beasts  ” is 
not  based  upon  the  nature  of  the  food  upon  which 
these  animals  subsist;  but  the  distinction  between 
“cattle”  and  “ beasts”  is  based  solely  on  the  differ- 
ences in  their  physical  structures  that  the  “ cattle  ” 
are  quadrupeds , and  the  “beasts”  are  bipeds.  We 
feel  assured  that  every  unprejudiced  mind  will  agree 
with  us  that  there  is  a broader,  more  permanent  dis- 
tinction between  the  quadruped  animal  and  the  biped 
animal  than  could  possibly  exist  between  the  herbiv- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


191 


orous  animal  and  the  carnivorous  animal;  and  the 
preference  which  should  be  given  our  view  upon 
this  subject  over  those  o i the  modern  theologians  is 
greatly  enhanced  by  tne  presence  of  that  numerous 
class  of  animals,  which  are  both  herbivorous  and  car- 
nivorous; and  which  cannot  be  fairly  classed  with 
either  the  herbivores,  or  the  carnivores.  Hence, 
the  presence  of  these  omnivorous  animals  practically 
destroys  the  accepted  distinction  between  “cattle” 
and  “ beasts  ” — that  the  former  are  herbivorous,  and 
the  latter  are  -carnivorous  animals — and  necessitates 
the  creation  of  a third  class  for  the  omnivorous. 
This  we  have  no  authority  to  do.  The  Mosaic  Rec- 
ord divides  the  higher  animals  into  two  classes, 
“ cattle”  and  “beasts;”  and  every  one  of  these  ani- 
mals belongs  in  one  or  the  other  of  these  two 
classes. 

Our  contention  that  the  distinction  which  the 
inspired  writer  makes  between  the  “ cattle  ” and  the 
“ beasts  ” is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  former  are  quad- 
rupeds, and  the  latter  bipeds,  has  the  following  advan- 
tage: (1)  It  recognizes  the  broad,  impassible  gulf 
which  Goci  created  between  the  quadruped  and  the 
biped.  (2)  Since  there  is  no  animal  which  is  at  once 
a quadruped  and  a biped,  it  enables  us  to  place  all 
the  higher  animals  in  two  classes,  without  reference 
to  whether  they  are  herbivorous,  carnivorous,  or  om- 
nivorous. (3)  It  harmonizes  the  teachings  of  the 
Mosaic  Record  with  those  of  the  Geological  Record 
as  to  tne  order  in  which  the  three  classes  of  land 
animals  made  their  appearance  on  the  earth.  (1) 
“ Cattle  ” ( quadrupeds ) . (2)  “ Creeping  things,”  a 


192 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


variety  of  animal  form.  (3)  “ Beasts  ” (bipeds — 
apes) . 

The  quadrupeds  and  the  bipeds  present  the 
strongest  contrast  to  each  other  in  their  general 
physical  and  mental  organisms;  but  more  especially 
in  their  extremities  or  limbs  and  in  the  termina- 
tions of  their  limbs,  and  in  their  posture. 

The  quadrupeds  (“cattle”)  are  that  class  of 
animals  whose  fore  extremities  or  limbs  are  legs , 
which  terminate  in  hoofs,  or  paws,  as  the  case  may 
be;  their  posture  when  standing  or  walking  is  on 
“ all  fours.” 

The  bipeds  (“  beasts”)  are  that  class  of  animals, 
each  of  whose  fore  or  upper  extremities  is  an  arm, 
which  terminates  in  a hand;  and  each  of  whose 
hinder  or  lower  extremities  is  a leg  which  termi- 
nates in  a foot;  they  also  have  the  erect  posture,  or 
the  ability  to  assume  it  at  will. 

Prof.  Huxley,  in  discussing  the  habits  of  the 
so-called  “anthropoid  or  man-like  ape,”  says: 

“ There  is  good  testimony  that  various  species 
of  gibbon  readily  take  to  the  erect  posture.  Mr. 
George  Bennett  ( Wanderings  in  New  South  Wales, 
Yol.  II,  chap,  viii) , a very  excellent  observer,  in 
describing  the  habits  of  a male  Hylohates  syndac- 
tylus  which  remained  for  some  time  in  his  pos- 
session, says:  ‘He  invariably  walks  in  the  erect 
posture  when  on  a level  surface.  * * * ' He 

walks  rather  quick  in  the  erect  posture,  but  with  a 
waddling  gait,  and  is  soon  run  down  if,  whilst  pur- 
sued, he  has  no  opportunity  of  escaping  by  climb- 
ing. * * * ‘ When  he  walks  in  the  erect  posture, 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


193 


he  turns  the  leg  and  foot  outwards,  which  occasions 
him  to  have  a waddling  gait  and  to  seem  bow- 
legged.’ 

“Dr.  Burroughs  states  of  another  gibbon,  the 
Horlack  or  Hooluk: 

“ ‘They  walk  erect;  and  when  placed  on  the 
floor,  or  in  an  open  field,  balance  themselves  very 
prettily  by  raising  their  hands  over  their  head  and 
slightly  bending  the  arm  at  the  wrist  and  at  the 
elbow,  and  then  run  tolerably  fast,  rocking  from 
side  to  side.’  ” ( Man's  Place  in  Nature , pp.  39,  40) . 

The  evident  fact  that  the  “cattle”  are  quadru- 
peds; and  that  the  “beasts”  or  apes  are  bipeds  must 
have  been  known  to  the  ancients  in  the  ages  which 
immediately  followed  the  Deluge;  but  when  the 
great  bulk  of  mankind  renounced  monotheism,  in 
their  descent  to  atheism,  amalgamation,  and  poly- 
theism, this  fact,  together  with  other  invaluable 
knowledge,  was  lost.  But  in  the  course  of  time, 
God  in  His  mercy  took  pity  on  their  ignorance,  and 
restored  this  long  lost  truth  to  the  world  through 
Moses;  it  was  doubtless  retained  by  the  Jews  and 
many  Gentiles,  until  after  the  crucifixion,  the  dis- 
persion of  the- Jews,  and  the  decent  of  both  Jew  and 
Gentile,  under  the  curses  of  God,  into  that  frightful 
period  in  the  world’s  history,  known  as  the  “ Dark 
Ages,”  in  which  ignorance,  superstition,  and  crime 
reigned  supreme,  when  it  was  again  lost.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  during  the  “ Dark  Ages,”  the  term  “ cattle” 
(b’hemah) , was  restricted  to  a few  of  our  domestic 
animals,  and  so  remains;  but  it  is  significant  that 
these  are  all  quadrupeds.  When  the  knowledge 


194 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


that  the  apes  are  bipeds  was  lost,  these  creatures 
finally  came  to  be  regarded  as  quadrumana,  or  four- 
handed  animals.  This  error  prevailed  until  a few 
decades  ago,  when  its  falsity  was  revealed  by  com- 
parative anatomy;  it  was  then  discovered  that  there 
is  no  quadrumana  or  “ four-handed  ” animal,  and 
that  all  apes,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  are  bi- 
peds, or  two-legged  animals.  The  distinguished  honor 
of  this  great  discovery  belongs  to  that  most  accom- 
plished naturalist,  the  late  Prof.  Thos.  H.  Huxley, 
who  published  it  to  the  world  in  the  year  1860. 
Though  it  must  be  admitted  that  Prof.  Huxley  lived 
and  died  in  utter  ignorance  of  the  important  bear- 
ing his  discovery  has  on  the  biblical  subject  now 
under  discussion;  and  even  the  advocates  of  the 
Bible  failed  to  recognize  its  value  and  importance, 
until  the  author  of  this  wrork  called  attention  to  it 
in  his  lectures*  which  appeared  in  the  year  1899. 
But  the  discovery  that  the  ape  is  a biped,  is  so  far- 
reaching  in  its  consequences;  so  direct  is  its  assault 
upon  universally  accepted  theories;  so  irresistible 
is  its  tendencies  to  demolish  long  cherished  religions 
and  other  beliefs,  that  it  is  denied  that  cordial  wel- 
come which  should  always  be  extended  to  the  truth. 

In  his  great  work  on  comparative  anatomjq  in 
which  he  demonstrates  that  the  fore  or  upper  ex- 
tremities of  every  ape  are  arms  terminating  in  hands, 
and  that  their  hinder,  or  lower  extremities,  are  legs 
terminating  in  feet,  Mr.  Huxley  says: 

“ Man  has  been  defined  as  the  only  animal  pos- 

* “ The  Negro  not  the  son  of  Ham,  or  Man  not  a species  divisible 
into  Races.” 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


195 


sessecl  of  two  hands  terminating  his  fore  limbs,  and 
two  feet  ending  his  hind  limbs,  while  it  has  been 
said  that  all  the  apes  possess  four  hands.  * * * 

‘ That  the  * * * proposition  should  have  gained 

general  acceptance  is  not  surprising — indeed,  at  first 
sight,  appearances  are  much  in  its  favor.  * * * 

Before  we  can  discuss  the  * * * point  with  ad- 

vantage we  must  consider  with  some  attention,  and 
compare  together  the  structure  of  the  human  hand 
and  that  of  the  human  foot,  so  that  we  may  have 
distinct  and  clear  ideas  of  what  constitutes  a hand 
and  what  a foot. 

“The  external  form  of  the  human  hand  is 
familiar  enough  to  every  one.  It  consists  of  a 
stout  wrist,  followed  by  a broad  palm,  formed 
of  flesh,  and  tendons,  and  skin,  binding  to- 
gether four  bones,  and  dividing  into  four  long 
and  flexible  digits,  or  fingers,  each  of  which 
bears  on  the  back  of  its  last  joint  a broad  and 
flattened  nail.  The  longest  cleft  between  any  two 
digits  is  rather  less  than  half  as  long  as  the  hand. 
From  the  outer  side  of  the  base  of  the  palm  a stout 
digit  goes  off,  having  only  two  joints  instead  of  three; 
so  short,  that  it  only  reaches  to  a little  beyond  the 
middle  of  the  first  joint  of  the  finger  next  it;  and 
further  remarkable  by  its  great  mobility,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  it  can  be  directed  outwards,  almost 
at  a right  angle  to  the  rest.  This  digit  is  called  the 
‘pollex,’  or  thumb;  and,  like  the  others,  it  bears  a 
flat  nail  upon  the  back  of  its  terminal  joint.  In  con- 
sequence of  the  proportions  and  mobility  of  the 
thumb,  it  is  what  is  termed  ‘ opposable;’  in  other 


196 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


words,  its  extremity  can,  with  the  greatest  ease,  be 
brought  into  contact  with  the  extremities  of  any  of 
the  fingers;  a property  upon  which  the  possibility 
of  our  carrying  into  effect  the  conceptions  of  the 
mind  so  largely  depends. 

“ The  external  form  of  the  foot  differs  widely 
from  that  of  the  hand;  and  yet,  when  closely  com- 
pared, the  two  present  some  singular  resemblances. 
Thus  the  ankle  corresponds  in  a manner  with  the 
wrist;  the  sole  with  the  palm;  the  toes  with  the  fin- 
gers; the  great  toe  with  the  thumb.  But  the  toes, 
or  digits  of  the  foot,  are  far  shorter  in  proportion 
than  the  digits  of  the  hand,  and  are  less  movable,  the 
want  of  mobility  being  most  striking  in  the  great  toe 
— which,  again,  is  very  much  larger  in  proportion  to 
the  other  toes  than  the  thumb  to  the  fingers.  In 
eonsidering  this  point,  however,  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  the  civilized  great  toe,  confined  and 
cramped  from  childhood  upwards,  is  seen  to  a great 
disadvantage,  and  that  in  uncivilized  and  bare-footed 
people  it  retains  a great  amount  of  mobility,  and 
even  some  sort  of  opposability.  The  Chinese  boat- 
men are  said  to  be  able  to  pull  an  oar;  the  artisans 
of  Bengal  to  weave;  and  the  Carajas  to  steal  fish 
hooks  by  its  help;  though,  after  all,  it  must  be  recol- 
lected that  the  structure  of  its  joints  and  the  arrange- 
ment of  its  bones  necessarily  render  its  prehensile 
action  far  less  perfect  than  that  of  the  thumb. 

“ But  to  gain  a precise  conception  of  the  resem- 
blances and  differences  of  the  hand  and  foot,  and  the 
distinctive  characters  of  each,  we  must  look  below 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


197 


the  skin,  and  compare  the  bony  framework  and  its 
motor  apparatus  in  each. 

“ The  skeleton  of  the  hand  exhibits,  in  the  re- 
gion which  we  term  the  wrist,  and  which  is  techni- 
cally called  the  carpus — two  rows  of  closely-fitted 
polygonal  bones,  four  in  each  row,  which  are  toler- 
ably equal  in  size.  The  bones  of  the  first  row  with 
the  bones  of  the  fore-arm,  form  the  wrist  or  joint, 
and  are  arranged  side  by  side,  no  one  greatly  exceed- 
ing or  overlaping  the  rest. 

“The  four  bones  of  the  second  row  of  the  car- 
pus bear  the  four  long  bones  which  support  the  palm 
of  the  hand.  The  fifth  bone  of  the  same  character 
is  articulated  in  a much  more  free  and  movable  man- 
ner than  the  others,  with  its  carpal  bone,  and  forms 
the  base  of  the  thumb.  These  are  called  metacarpal 
bones,  and  they  carry  the  phalanges , or  bones  of  the 
digits,  of  which  there  are  two  in  the  thumb  and 
three  in  each  of  the  fingers. 

“ The  skeleton  of  the  foot  is  very  like  that  of 
the  hand  in  some  respects.  Thus  there  are  three 
phalanges  in  each  of  the  lesser  toes,  and  only  two  in 
the  great  toe,  which  answers  to  the  thumb.  There  is 
a long  bone  termed  metatarsel,  answering  to  the  me- 
tacarpel, for  each  digit;  and  the  tarsus,  which  corres- 
ponds with  the  carpus,  presents  four  short  polygonal 
bones  in  a row,  which  correspond  very  clearly  with 
the  four  carpal  bones  of  the  second  row  of  the  hand. 
In  other  respects  the  foot  differs  very  widely  from 
the  hand.  Thus  the  great  toe  is  the  longest  digit 
but  one;  and  its  metatarsel  is  far  less  movably  arti- 
culated with  the  tarsus,  than  the  metacarpel  of  the 


198 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


thumb  with  the  carpus.  But  a far  more  important 
distinction  lies  in  the  fact  that,  instead  of  four  more 
tarsal  bones  there  are  only  three;  and  that  these  three 
are  not  arranged  side  by  side,  or  in  one  row.  One  of 
them,  the  os  calcis  or  heel  bone  (ca) , lies  externally, 
and  sends  back  the  large  projecting  heel;  another,  the 
astragalus  (as),  rests  on  this  by  one  face,  and  by 
another,  forms,  with  the  bones  of  the  leg,  the  ankle 
joint;  while  a third  face,  directed  forwards,  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  three  inner  tarsel  bones  of  the  row 
next  the  metatarsus  by  a bone  called  the  scaphoid 
(sc). 

“ Thus  there  is  a fundamental  difference  in  the 
structure  of  the  foot  and  the  hand,  observable  when 
the  carpus  and  the  tarsus  are  contrasted;  and  there 
are  differences  of  degree  noticeable  when  the  pro- 
portions and  the  mobility  of  the  metacarpals  and 
metatarsals,  with  their  respective  digits,  are  com- 
pared together. 

“ The  same  two  classes  of  differences  become 
obvious  when  the  muscles  of  the  hand  are  compared 
with  those  of  the  foot. 

“ Three  principal  sets  of  muscles,  called  ‘ flexors,’ 
bind  the  fingers  and  thumb,  as  in  clinching  the  fist, 
and  three  sets — the  extensors — extend  them,  as  in 
straightening  the  fingers.  These  muscles  are  all 
‘long  muscles;’  that  is  to  say,  the  fleshy  part  of 
each,  lying  in  and  being  fixed  to  the  bones  of  the 
arm,  is,  at  the  other  end,  continued  into  tendons,  or 
rounded  cords,  which  pass  into  the  hand,  and  are 
ultimately  fixed  to  the  bones  which  are  to  be  moved. 
Thus,  when  the  fingers  are  bent,  the  fleshy  parts  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


199 


the  flexors  of  the  fingers,  placed  in  the  arm,  con- 
tract, in  virtue  of  their  peculiar  endowment  as  mus- 
cles; and  pulling  the  tendinous  cords,  connected 
with  their  ends,  cause  them  to  pull  down  the  bones 
of  the  fingers  towards  the  palm. 

“Not  only  are  the  principal  flexors  of  the  fin- 
gers and  of  the  thumb  long  muscles,  but  they  re- 
main quite  distinct  from  one  another  throughout 
their  whole  length. 

“ In  the  foot,  there  are  also  three  principal  flexor 
muscles  of  the  digits  or  toes,  and  three  principal 
extensors;  but  one  extensor  and  one  flexor  are  short 
muscles;  that  is  to  say,  their  fleshy  parts  are  not 
situated  in  the  leg  (which  corresponds  with  the 
arm) , but  in  the  back  and  in  the  sole  of  the  foot — 
regions  which  correspond  with  the  back  and  the 
palm  of  the  hand. 

“Again,  the  tendons  of  the  long  flexor  of  the 
toes,  and  of  the  long  flexor  of  the  great  toe,  when 
they  reach  the  sole  of  the  foot,  do  not  remain  dis- 
tinct from  one  another,  as  the  flexors  in  the  palm 
of  the  hand  do,  but  they  become  united  and  com- 
mingled in  a very  curious  manner,  while  their 
united  tendons  receive  an  accessory  muscle  con- 
nected with  the  heel  bone. 

“ But  perhaps  the  most  absolutely  distinctive 
character  about  the  muscles  of  the  foot  is  the  exist- 
ence of  what  is  termed  the  peronceus  longus , a long 
muscle  fixed  to  the  outer  bone  of  the  leg,  and  send- 
ing its  tendon  to  the  outer  ankle,  behind  and  below 
which  it  passes,  and  then  crosses  the  foot  obliquely 
to  be  attached  to  the  base  of  the  great  toe.  No 


200 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


muscle  in  the  hand  exactly  corresponds  with  this, 
which  is  eminently  a foot  muscle. 

“To  resume,  the  foot  of  man  is  distinguished 
from  his  hand  by  the  following  absolute  anatomical 
differences: 

“ 1.  By  the  arrangement  of  the  tarsal  bones. 

“ 2.  By  having  a short  flexor  and  a short  ex- 
tensor muscle  of  the  digits. 

“ 3.  By  possessing  the  muscle  termed  peronosus 
longus. 

“And  if  we  desire  to  ascertain  whether  the  ter- 
minal division  of  a limb,  in  other  Primates,  is  to  be 
called  a foot  or  hand,  it  is  by  the  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  these  characters  we  must  be  guided,  and 
not  by  the  mere  proportions  and  greater  or  lesser 
mobility  of  the  great  toe,  which  may  vary  indefi- 
nitely without  any  fundamental  alteration  in  the 
structure  of  the  foot. 

“Keeping  these  considerations  in  mind,  let  us 
now  turn  to  the  limbs  of  the  gorilla.  The  terminal 
division  of  the  fore  limb  presents  no  difficulty — 
bone  for  bone  and  muscle  for  muscle  are  found  to 
be  arranged  essentially  as  in  man,  or  with  such 
minor  differences  as  are  found  as  varieties  in  man. 
The  gorilla’s  hand  is  clumsier,  heavier,  and  has  a 
thumb  somewhat  shorter  in  proportion  than  that  of 
man ; but  no  one  has  ever  doubted  its  being  a true 
hand. 

“At  first  sight,  the  termination  of  the  hind  limb 
of  the  gorilla  looks  very  hand  like,  and  as  it  is  still 
more  so  in  many  of  the  lower  apes,  it  is  not  wonder- 
ful that  the  appellation  ‘ Quadrumana,’  or  four- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


201 


handed  creatures,  adopted  from  the  older  anatomists 
by  Blumenbach,  and  unfortunately  rendered  current 
by  Curvier,  should  have  gained  such  wide  accept- 
ance as  a name  for  the  Simian  group.  But  the  most 
cursory  anatomical  investigation  at  once  proves  that 
the  resemblance  of  the  so-called  ‘hind  hand’  to  a 
true  hand  is  only  skin  deep,  and  that  in  all  essential 
respects  the  hind  limb  of  the  gorilla  is  as  truly  ter- 
minated by  a foot  as  that  of  man.  The  tarsal  bones, 
in  all  important  circumstances  of  number,  disposi- 
tion, and  form,  resemble  those  of  man.  The  meta- 
tarsals and  digits  on  the  other  hand,  are  proportion- 
ately longer  and  more  slender,  while  the  great  toe  is 
not  only  proportionally  shorter  and  weaker,  but  its 
metatarsal  bone  is  united  by  a more  movable  joint 
with  the  tarsus.  At  the  same  time,  the  foot  is  set 
more  obliquely  upon  the  leg  than  in  man. 

“As  to  the  muscles,  there  is  a short  flexor,  a 
short  extensor,  and  a peronceus  longus,  while  the  ten- 
dons of  the  long  flexors  of  the  great  toe  and  of  the 
other  toes  are  united  together  and  with  an  accessory 
fleshy  bundle. 

“The  hind  limb  of  the  gorilla,  therefore,  ends  in 
a true  foot,  with  a very  movable  great  toe.  It  is  a 
prehensile  foot,  indeed,  but  in  no  sense  a hand;  it  is 
a foot  which  differs  from  that  of  man  not  in  any 
fundamental  character,  but  in  mere  proportions,  in 
the  degree  of  mobility,  and  in  the  secondary  arrange- 
ment of  its  parts. 

“It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  because  I 
speak  of  these  differences  as  not  fundamental,  that  I 
wish  to  underrate  their  value.  They  are  important 


202 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


enough  in  their  way,  the  structure  of  the  foot  being 
in  strict  correlation  with  that  of  the  rest  of  the  or- 
ganism in  each  case.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that 
the  greater  division  of  physiological  labor  in  man, 
so  that  the  function  of  support  is  thrown  wholly  on 
the  leg  and  foot,  is  an  advance  in  the  organization  of 
very  great  moment  to  him;  but,  after  all,  regarded 
anatomically,  the  resemblances  between  the  foot  of 
man  and  the  foot  of  the  gorilla  are  far  more  striking 
and  important  than  the  differences. 

“I  have  dwelt  upon  this  point  at  length,  because 
it  is  one  regarding  which  much  delusion  prevails; 
but  I might  have  passed  it  over  without  detriment 
to  my  argument,  which  only  requires  me  to  show 
that,  be  the  differences  between  the  hand  and  foot  of 
man  and  those  of  the  gorilla  what  they  may — the  dif- 
ferences between  those  of  the  gorilla  and  those  of 
the  lower  apes  are  much  greater. 

“It  is  not  necessary  to  descend  lower  in  the 
scale  than  the  orang  for  conclusive  evidence  on  this 
head. 

“ The  thumb  of  the  orang  differs  more  from  that 
of  the  gorilla  than  the  thumb  of  the  gorilla  differs 
from  that  of  man,  not  only  by  its  shortness,  but  by 
the  absence  of  any  special  long  flexor  muscle.  The 
carpus  of  the  orang,  like  that  of  most  lower  apes, 
contains  nine  bones,  while  in  the  gorilla,  as  in  man 
and  the  chimpanzee,  there  are  only  eight. 

“The  orang’ s foot  is  still  more  aberrant;  its 
very  long  toes  and  short  tarsus,  short  great  toe, 
short  and  raised  heel,  great  obliquity  of  articulation 
in  the  leg,  and  absence  of  a long  flexor  tendon  to 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


203 


the  great  toe,  separating  it  far  more  widely  from  the 
foot  of  the  gorilla  than  the  latter  is  separated  from 
that  of  man. 

“ But,  in  some  of  the  lower  apes,  the  hand  and 
foot  diverge  still  more  from  those  of  the  gorilla  than 
they  do  in  the  orang.  The  thumb  ceases  to  be  op- 
posable in  the  American  monkeys — is  reduced  to  a 
mere  rudiment  covered  by  the  skin  in  the  spider 
monkeys — and  is  directed  forwards  and  armed  with 
a curved  claw  like  the  other  digits,  in  the  marmosets 
— so  that,  in  all  these  cases,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
but  that  the  hand  is  more  different  from  that  of  the 
gorilla  than  the  gorilla’s  hand  is  from  man’s. 

“ And  as  to  the  foot,  the  great  toe  of  the  mar- 
moset is  still  more  insignificant  in  proportion  than 
that  of  the  orang — while  in  the  lemurs  it  is  very 
large,  and  as  completely  thumb-like  and  opposable 
as  in  the  gorilla — but  in  these  animals  the  second 
toe  is  often  irregularly  modified,  and  in  some  species 
the  two  principal  bones  of  the  tarsus,  the  astragalus 
and  the  os  calcis,  are  so  immensely  elongated  as  to 
render  the  foot,  so  far,  totally  unlike  that  of  any 
other  mammal. 

“So  with  regard  to  the  muscles.  The  short 
flexor  of  the  toes  of  the  gorilla  differs  from  that  of 
man  by  the  circumstance  that  one  slip  of  the  muscle 
is  attached,  not  to  the  heel  bone,  but  to  the  tendons 
of  the  long  flexors.  The  lower  apes  depart  from  the 
gorilla  by  an  exaggeration  of  the  same  character,  two, 
three,  or  more  slips  becoming  fixed  to  the  long  flexor 
tendons — or  by  a multiplication  of  the  slips.  Again, 
the  gorilla  differs  slightly  from  man  in  the  mode 


204 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


of  interlacing  of  the  long  flexor  tendons;  and  the 
the  lower  apes  differ  from  the  gorilla  in  exhibiting 
yet  other,  sometimes  very  complex,  arrangements  of 
the  same  parts,  and  occasionally  in  the  absence  of 
the  accessory  fleshy  bundle. 

“ Throughout  all  these  modifications  it  must  be 
recollected  that  the  foot  loses  not  one  of  its  essential 
characters.  Every  monkey  and  lemur  exhibits  the 
characteristic  arrangement  of  tarsal  bones,  possesses 
a short  flexor  and  short  extensor  muscle,  and  aperon- 
osus  longus.  Varied  as  the  proportions  and  appear- 
ance of  the  organ  may  be,  the  terminal  division  of 
the  hind  limb  remains,  in  plan  and  principle  of  con- 
struction, a foot,  and  never,  in  those  respects,  can  be 
confounded  with  the  hand.”  {Man's  Place  in  Nature , 
pp.  102,  112  inc) . 

This  mass  of  evidence  from  the  highest  autho- 
rity on  the  subject  establishes  the  fact  there  is  a vast 
difference  between  the  physical  structure  of  the 
“ beasts  ” and  the  “ cattle.”  And  clearly  indicates 
that  these  differences  are  the  proper  basis  upon 
which  to  place  the  distinction  which  God  made  be- 
tween them. 

It  is  evident  that  in  God’s  plan  of  creation,  the 
apes  occupy  a position  intermediate  between  that  of 
the  quadrupeds  and  man.  But,  though  the  lines  of 
distinction  are  broad  and  clearly  drawn  between  the 
quadrupeds  and  the  lemur — the  lowest  ape — they 
are  small  and  insignificant,  compared  to  the  great 
gulf  which  intervenes  between  the  highest  ape  and 
man.  With  each  ascending  step  in  the  ape  series, 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


205 


their  contrast  to  the  quadrupeds,  and  their  resem- 
blance to  man  becomes  more  marked. 

Mr.  Huxley  says,  (Ibid,  p.  101). 

“ Whatever  part  of  the  animal  fabric — whatever 
series  of  muscles,  whatever  viscera  might  be  selected 
for  comparison,  the  result  would  be  the  same — the 
lower  apes  and  the  gorilla  differ  more  than  the  gorilla 
and  the  man.” 

The  distinctions  between  the  “ cattle”  and  the 
“beasts”  as  shown  in  their  extremities  and  in  the 
termination  of  these,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows: 

The  four  extremites  in  the  “ cattle  ” are  all  legs, 
hence  they  are  quadrupeds.  And  their  four  extrem- 
ities all  terminate  in  hoofs  or  paws,  as  the  case  may 
be. 

The  fore  or  upper  extremities  of  the  beasts, 
like  those  of  man,  are  arms,  each  of  which  termi- 
nates in  a hand. 

The  hind  or  lower  extremities  of  the  beasts  are 
legs,  hence,  like  man,  they  are  bipeds.  Between  the 
“cattle”  or  “quadrupeds,”  with  their  four  legs  ter- 
minating in  hoofs  or  paws,  as  the  case  may  be, 
and  the  “ beasts  ” or  “ bipeds”  with  each  of  their 
arms  terminating  in  a hand,  and  each  of  their  legs 
terminating  in  a foot,  there  is  a gulf  which  is  far 
greater  than  that  between  the  anthropoid  and  the 
negro,  or  any  of  the  so-called  “lower  races  of  men.” 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  the  biped  is  a 
higher  grade  of  creation  than  the  quadruped.  If 
man  wras  the  only  biped,  and  had  the  ape  family 
never  existed,  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  a 
naturalist,  however  sceptical  he  might  be,  that  man 


206 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE 


had  descended  from  the  quadruped,  and  through 
these  from  the  lowest  form  of  animal  life.  The  gulf 
between  them  would  have  been  too  wide  for  man  to 
have  closed  with  a leap.  Hence,  man  would  have 
been  recognized,  as  the  Bible  teaches,  a Creation  as 
separate  and  distinct  from  the  fish  and  fowl  and 
beast  as  he  is  from  the  plant  or  the  planet.  But  the 
apes,  like  man  and  the  quadrupeds,  have  an  exist- 
tence.  And  though  man,  in  his  criminal  folly,  has 
seized  upon  them  as  the  weapon  with  which  to  assail 
the  Word  of  God,  they  will  yet  prove  the  inestima- 
ble blessing  to  man  which  God,  in  His  wisdom  and 
love,  designed  they  should  be.  The  vast  width  and 
importance  of  the  great  gulf  which  separates  between 
quadrupeds  and  bipeds  has  always  been  recognized 
and  appreciated. 

When  man  was  recognized  as  the  only  biped, 
and  the  anatomy  of  the  apes  was  not  clearly  under- 
stood, these  creatures  were  seized  upon  by  the  scepti- 
cal scientists,  and  urged  forward  as  the  transitional 
forms  through  which  man  descended  from  the 
quadrupeds,  and  through  these,  from  the  lowest 
form  of  animal  life,  thus  spanning  this  otherwise  im- 
passable gulf.  But  the  critical  investigations  of  Mr. 
Huxley  reveal  the  startling  truth  that  the  location 
of  this  gulf  has  been  wholly  misunderstood.  This 
great  naturalist  proves  by  comparative  anatomy  that 
the  gulf  which  separates  between  the  quadrupeds 
and  the  bipeds  is  situated,  not  between  the  quadru- 
peds and  man,  but  between  the  quadrupeds  and 
apes. 

Heretofore  we  have  been  led  to  suppose  that  the 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


207 


quadrupeds  on  the  one  side,  and  man  on  the  other 
side,  constituted  the  shores  of  the  great  gulf  which 
intervenes  between  quadrupeds  and  bipeds,  while 
the  ape  series,  as  a bridge,  spans  this  gulf  and  thus 
forms  a natural  connection  between  its  opposite  and 
distant  shores.  But  comparative  anatomy  demon- 
strates that  no  such  connection  exists ; and  that  the 
quadrupeds  on  the  one  side,  and  the  apes  on  the 
other,  and  not  man  and  the  quadrupeds,  constitutes 
the  opposite  shores  of  this  gulf. 

At  a glance  we  might  be  led  to  suppose  that 
this  discovery  would  lessen  the  width,  and  corre- 
spondingly lessen  the  value  of  this  dividing  gulf. 
But  careful  investigation  must  convince  us  that  no 
such  result  can  ensue. 

Formerly  it  was  supposed  that  apes  were  four- 
handed  animals.  Hence,  the  term  “ quadru-mana” 
was  applied  to  them.  Since  they  were  supposed  to 
have  four  hands,  they  were  supposed,  of  course,  to 
have  four  arms;  for  it  would  be  as  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  a leg  could  terminate  in  a hand,  as  to  sup- 
pose that  an  arm  could  terminate  in  a foot.  But  Mr. 
Huxley  has  demonstrated  by  comparative  anatomy 
that  the  ape,  like  man,  is  a biped.  Hence,  he  occu- 
pies the  same  side  of  the  great  gulf  which  separates 
between  quadrupeds  and  bipeds  that  man  occupies. 
We  thus  discover  that  the  absurd  theory  that  the 
apes  span  this  gulf,  and  form  the  connecting  link — 
the  link  of  kinship — between  man  and  the  quadru- 
peds, and  through  these,  with  the  lowest  order  of 
animal  life  has  its  origin  and  existence  solely  in  the 


208 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


fertile  imagination  of  the  evolutionists,  and  is  not 
founded  upon  facts. 

If,  upon  going  on  a journey,  we  were  led  to  sup- 
pose that  a stream  was  bridged  at  a certain  point, 
until  upon  reaching  it  we  find  that  the  stream  had 
never  been  bridged,  this  circumstance  would  not 
lessen  the  width  of  the  stream.  So  it  is  in  this  case. 
The  world  has  been  led  to  believe  that  man  is  the 
only  biped,  and  that  the  apes  spanned  the  great 
gulf  which  separates  between  the  quadrupeds  and 
man,  thus  forming  the  link  of  kinship  between 
them.  But  now  when  we  find  that  no  such  connec- 
tion exists,  this  circumstance  does  not  lessen  the 
width,  nor  reduce  the  value  of  the  gulf  itself  in  the 
least.  It  remains  the  same  wide  impassable  gulf. 

Now,  that  comparative  anatomy  establishes  the 
fact  that  man  is  not  the  only  biped,  and  that  the 
great  gulf  between  the  quadrupeds  and  bipeds  lies, 
not  between  the  quadrupeds  and  man,  but  between 
the  quadrupeds  and  apes,  no  naturalist  will  assert 
that  this  gulf  is  spanned  by  any  intermediate  class 
of  creatures  whose  fore  legs,  terminating  in  hoofs 
or  paws,  gradually  develop  through  the  series, 
into  arms  terminating  in  hands,  and  the  termina- 
tions of  whose  hind  legs  in  hoofs  or  paws  gradually 
develop  into  feet.  And  unless  the  evolutionists  can 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  such  an  intermediate 
class  of  creatures  connecting  the  “cattle”  or  quad- 
rupeds with  the  “beasts”  or  apes,  through  a grad- 
ually developing  and  unbroken  series,  “ The  Theory 
of  Descent,”  with  its  “missing  links,”  its  inconsist- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


209 


encies,  and  its  demoralizing,  degrading  infidelity- 
must  be  abandoned. 

The  non-existence  of  such  a series  forming  a 
connecting  link — the  link  of  kinship — between  the 
“cattle”  or  quadrupeds,  and  the  “beasts”  or  apes, 
at  once  establishes  the  truth  of  the  scriptural  teach- 
ings of  Divine  Creation,  and  demonstrates  the  falsity 
of  “ The  Theory  of  Descent.” 

Mr.  Huxley,  to  whom  the  world  is  indebted  for 
this  evidence  that  the  ape  is  a biped,  which  is  so  es- 
sential to  a proper  understanding  of  the  scriptures, 
was  an  open,  pronounced  foe  to  Christianity,  and 
was  one  of  the  ablest,  most  persistent  assailants  of 
the  Bible  the  world  has  ever  known.  Utterly  igno- 
rant of  the  true  teachings  of  the  Bible,  he  lived  and 
died  unconscious  that  his  most  brilliant  achieve- 
ment in  the  realm  of  science — his  proof  that  the  ape 
is  a biped — developed  the  most  positive,  absolute 
proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  This 
fact,  taken  in  connection  with  his  open,  aggressive 
hostility  to  Cod’s  word  reminds  us  that  David 
said,  in  addressing  God:  “Surely  the  wrath  of  man 
shall  praise  Thee.” 

Having  shown  by  comparative  anatomy  that 
the  higher  land  animals  are  naturally  divided  into 
two  distinct  classes — quadrupeds  and  bipeds — we  feel 
assured  that  the  broad  distinction  which  the  in- 
spired writer  makes  between  “cattle”  and  “beast” 
is  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  “ cattle  ” are  quadru- 
peds, and  that  the  “ beasts  ” are  bipeds — apes.  We 
shall  now  submit  our  interpretation  of  the  terms 
“ cattle  ” and  “ beasts  ” to  the  decisive  test  of  the 


210 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


science  of  geology;  ii  our  interpretation  of  the  Mo- 
saic Record  is  correct  the  Geological  Record,  in  har- 
mony with  the  Mosaic  Record,  will  show  that  these 
two  classes  of  animals  made  their  appearance  on  the 
earth  in  the  order  stated:  First,  “cattle”  ( quadru- 
peds) ; second,  “ beasts  ” (bipeds — apes ) ; -with  the 
“ creeping  things  ” (a  variety  of  animal  forms)  inter- 
vening between  them. 

But,  before  entering  upon  this  subject,  we  desire 
to  correct  another  error  into  which  the  scientists  have 
led  us  by  placing  the  whale  family,  the  higher  land 
animals  and  man,  in  one  class,  as  Mammals.  Thus 
disregarding  Paul’s  teaching  that  the  fish,  land  ani- 
mals, and  man,  each  represent  different  kinds  of  flesh. 
Nothing  is  gained  by  placing  these  creatures  in  one 
class,  even  though  they  are  all  mammals,  as  shown 
by  the  following  definition  of  the  term: 

“ Mammals  (from  Lat.  mama’lis,  pertaining  to  or 
having  breasts;  deriv.  of  mam’ma,  breast,  pap,  teat) : 
the  highest  class  of  the  vertebrate  branch  of  the  ani- 
mal kingdom,  and  therefore  the  most  specialized  or 
highest  group  of  living  creatures.  The  class  in- 
cludes all  vertebrates  with  warm  blood,  a heart  of 
four  chambers,  the  lower  jaw  composed  of  two 
branches  articulated  with  the  skull,  and  the  body 
partly  or  wholly  covered  with  hair.  It  thus  in- 
cludes man,  all  the  higher  quadrupeds,  and  the  vari- 
ous whale  and  porpoise-like  animals  which  possess 
hair  only  in  the  embyonic  state  and  often  then  only 
on  the  upper  lip.  The  habit  of  bringing  forth  the 
young  alive  is  not  exclusively  a character  of  the 
mammals,  being  shared  by  various  reptiles  and 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


211 


fishes.  On  the  other  hand  the  lowest  of  the  mam- 
mals, the  menotremes  lay  eggs  similar  to  those  of 
snakes,  and  the  mannos  or  milk  glands  of  the  fe- 
male are  scarcely  differentiated.”  ( Universal  Ency- 
clopedia) . 

Thus,  we  find  that  the  term  mammal — which 
includes  man  who  brings  forth  his  young  alive,  and 
the  menotremes,  which  lay  eggs — is  a very  lati- 
tudinous  term,  to  say  the  least  of  it.  The  fact  that 
we  have  permitted  scientists  with  atheistical  tenden- 
cies to  place  man  and  certain  animals  in  one  class, 
is  largely  responsible  for  our  ignorance  of  the  broad 
distinction  which  God  made  between  man  and  the 
animals,  and  the  confusion  which  has  resulted  from 
our  unpardonable  ignorance  upon  this  most  import- 
ant subject. 

In  our  chapter  on  the  introduction  of  the  fish  and 
the  fowl,  we  have  shown  that  the  earliest  of  these 
animals  to  make  their  appearance  on  the  globe,  were 
the  lowest  orders.  Hence,  we  should  not  be  sur- 
prised that  representatives  of  the  “ cattle  ” or  quad- 
rupeds, the  first  of  the  land  animals  to  make  their 
appearance  on  the  globe,  should  be  of  the  lowest  or- 
ders. 

In  discussing  these,  Mr.  Dana  divides  them  into 
two  classes,  as  follows: 

“ Mammals — The  highest  group  of  vertebrates 
are  of  two  grand  divisions: 

“ 1.  The  ordinary  or  True  Viviparous  Mammals , 
such  as  the  monkey,  lion,  elephant,  ox,  bat,  mouse, 
whale,  etc. 


Siuibj.-.m  Aoe,  or  Acs  o?  Invert hb rates. 


212 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE 


Periods. 


Epochs . 


/ V * v v v v v v > 

V V VVVVVVVVV^ 
y v y v v v y v v v v 

Fig.  3. 


Permian. 


Upper  Coal  Measures 


Lower  Coal  Measures. 


Millstone  Grit. 
Upper. 

Lower. 

Catskfll. 

Chemung. 

Portage. 

Genesee. 

Hamilton. 

Marcellos. 

Comiferons. 

Schoharie. 

Cauda-GallL 

Oriskauy 

Lower  Helderberr. 
Saline. 

Niagara. 

Clinton. 

Medina. 

Cincinnati. 

Utica. 

Trenton. 

Chazy. 

Quebec. 

Cslciterous. 

Potsdam. 

Acadian. 


Arebceao. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


213 


Epoch*. 


! Upper  or  IVhita 
Chalk. 

Lower  or  Gray. 

Middle  Cretaceous  (Upper  Green-sand). 
Lower  Cretaceous  (Lower  Green-sand). 


Upper 

Middle  OBlyte.  j Oxftnllfliy. 

Lower  Oolyte.  j Icferior  0olyte. 
Upper  Lias. 

Marls  tone. 

Lower  Lias. 


Muschelkalk. 


Buuter-sandstein. 


Fig.  3 (Continued).  GEOLOGICAL  RECORD. 

— From  Dana,  Manual  of  Geology . 


“ 2.  The  Semi-oviparous  mammals , which  are,  with 
one  exception,  Marsupials.  Birth  takes  place  before 
the  ordinary  degree  of  maturity  in  the  embryo  is  at- 
tained, and  they  thus  approximate  to  oviparous  ver- 
tebrates. The  immature  young  in  these  marsupials 
are  passed  into  a pouch  (viarsupiuvi) , situated  over 
the  venter  of  the  mother,  in  which  they  are  nour- 
ished from  her  teats,  until  the  degree  of  maturity 


214 


THE  TEMPTEH  OF  EVE. 


required  for  independent  existence  is  attained.  They 
are  the  lowest,  and  geologically  the  earliest,  of  mam- 
mals.” ( Manual  of  Geology,  p.  416). 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that,  while  all  the  so-called 
mammals  are  not  “cattle”  or  quadrupeds,  all  the 
“cattle”  or  quadrupeds  are  included  in  what  is 
termed  mammals. 

In  discussing  the  animal  forms  of  one  of  the 
early  geological  ages  — the  Triassic  period  of  Meso- 
zoic Time  — Mr.  Dana  says: 

“The  only  mammal  thus  far  discovered  in  the 
American  rocks  was  made  known  by  Professor 
Emmons.  The  specimens  are  two  jaw-bones  found 
in  North  Carolina.  According  to  Professor  Owen, 
they  belonged  to  an  insectivorous  (insect-eating) 
marsupial  near  the  modern  genus  myomecobius  of 
Australia.  The  species  has  been  named,  by  its 
discoverer,  dromatherium  sylvestre.  Mammals  of 
similar  kinds  probably  spread  over  the  continent, 
and  may  have  been  of  many  species.”  (Ibid,  pp. 
415,  416).  In  discussing  the  animal  life  of  the 
Triassic  period  in  Europe,  Mr.  Dana  figures  a tooth 
of  a marsupial  — Microlestes  anticus  Plien.,  which 
he  says  “was  closely  related  to  that  of  North 
Carolina.”  (Ibid,  p.  427).  Throughout  Mesozoic 
Time,  few,  if  any,  of  these  so-called  mammals  higher 
than  the  marsupial  existed.  But  following  this 
period,  in  what  is  termed  “The  Tertiary,  or  Mam- 
mallian  Age,”  all  the  higher  land  animals,  such  as 
the  camel,  horse,  elephant,  etc.,  appeared.  Follow- 
ing the  marsupials  came  a variety  of  animal  forms, 
bugs,  worms,  snakes,  and  other  small  animals,  which 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


215 


are  properly  described  in  scripture  as  the  “ creeping 
things.”  (See  Manual  of  Geology) . Following  these 
in  what  is  termed  the  Eucine  period  of  the  Tertiary 
came  the  apes.  In  discussing  the  life  of  the  Eocene, 
Mr.  Dana  says:  “Besides  the  species  akin  to  the 

Ungulates,  there  were  also  * * * Monkeys  re- 

lated to  the  Lemurs.  (Ibid,  p.  504) . Thus  the 
Lemurs,  the  lowest  form  of  the  apes,  were  the  first 
apes  or  “beasts”  to  make  their  appearance  on  the 
earth.  The  higher  forms  of  apes  came  at  a later 
period. 

Thus,  the  Geological  Record  sustains  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Mosaic  Record  as  to  the  order  in  which 
the  three  classes  of  land  animals  made  their  appear- 
ance on  the  globe:  1st.  Quadrupeds  (cattle).  2nd. 

A variety  of  animal  forms  (creeping  things.)  3rd. 
Apes — bipeds  (beasts). 


CHAPTER  IX. 


The  Beast  of  the  Field. 

The  “beast  of  the  earth”  and  the  “beast  of  the 
field.” 

“And  God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth  after  his 
kind,  and  cattle  after  their  kind,  and  eveiy  creeping 
thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  after  his  kind: 
and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.”  (Gen.  i,  25) . 

What  is  the  beast  of  the  earth,  and  after  what 
“kind”  is  he?  In  this  connection  we  may  also 
ask,  what  is  the  “ beast  of  the  field,”  and  after  what 
“kind”  is  he?  It  is  plain  that  the  “beast  of  the 
earth”  and  the  “beast  of  the  field”  were  made 
“ after  ” the  “ beast,”  or  ape  “ kind;  ” that  these  terms 
describe  an  ape. 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  have  seen  that  Mr. 
Dawson  renders  the  “compound  term  hay’th-eretz ” 
“carnivora,”  and  says  “it  is  here  intended  to  denote 
a particular  tribe  of  animals  inhabiting  the  land.” 
We  have  taken  issue  with  him  on  this  subject,  and 
have  shown  that  the  Hebrew  term  translated  “ beast 
of  the  earth  ” in  our  version  of  the  Bible,  denotes 
the  highest  race  of  the  ape  species,  and  has  no  refer- 
ence to  the  carnivora. 

The  fact  that  the  “ beast  of  the  earth  ” is  not  a 
general  term  intended  to  include  all  the  land  ani- 
mals, is  shown  by  the  Mosaic  Record;  in  our  text 

216 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


217 


this  creature  is  shown  to  have  been  made  “after” 
the  “kind”  of  that  class  of  animals  termed  “beast” 
in  contradistinction  to  the  “ cattle  ” and  the  “ creeping 
things.”  Further  evidence  that  the  term  “ beast  of 
the  earth”  is  not  a general  term  intended  to  in- 
clude all  the  land  animals,  is  shown  by  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Deluge:  “And  God  blessed  Noah 

and  his  sons,  and  said  unto  them:  Be  fruitful,  and 
multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth.  And  the  fear  of 
you  and  the  dread  of  you  shall  be  upon  every  beast 
of  the  earth,  and  upon  every  fowl  of  the  air,  upon  all 
that  moveth  upon  the  earth,  and  upon  all  the  fishes 
of  the  sea;  into  your  hand  are  they  delivered.” 
(Gen.  iv,  1,  2) . 

God  thus  placed  into  the  hands  of  Noah  and  his 
sons  (1)  the  “beast  of  the  earth;”  (2)  the  “fowl  of 
the  air;”  (3)  “all  that  moveth  upon  the  earth;”  (4) 
the  “ fishes  of  the  sea.”  It  is  significant  that  in  this 
text  God  treats  the  land  animals  very  differently 
from  the  manner  in  which  He  treats  the  “ fowl  of  the 
air”  and  the  “fishes,”  in  that  He  divides  them  into 
two  parts;  the  one  part  is  represented  by  the  “beast 
of  the  earth;”  the  other  part  by  “all  that  moveth 
upon  the  earth,”  which,  of  course,  embraces  the  rest 
of  the  land  animals;  and  as  if  to  emphasize  the  dis- 
tinction which  He  makes  between  them,  God  sep- 
arates the  “ beast  of  the  earth  ” from  the  rest  of  the 
land  animals  by  placing  the  fowl  of  the  air  between 
them.  This  cannot  be  accidental;  God  never  does 
anything  by  accident;  what  God  does,  He  does  with 
the  most  positive,  absolute  design;  and  in  this  case 
He  evidently  designed  to  impress  upon  our  minds 


218 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


the  fact  that  the  term  “ beast  of  the  earth  ” is  not  a 
general  term  intended  to  include  all  the  land  ani- 
mals, nor  even  the  carnivora,  but  that  it  describes  a 
particular  race  of  the  beast  or  ape  species. 

The  following  language  of  David  to  Goliath 
throws  a flood  of  light  on  the  “beast  of  the  earth:” 
“This  day  will  the  Lord  deliver  thee  into  mine  hand; 
and  I will  smite  thee,  and  take  thine  head  from  thee; 
and  I will  give  the  carcases  of  the  host  of  the  Philis- 
tines this  day  unto  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  to  the 
wild  beasts  of  the  earth.”  (/  Sam.  xvii,  46) . 

This  reveals  the  startling  fact  that  the  “ beast  of 
the  earth  ” is  a man-eater,  and  not  one  of  the  recog- 
nized apes  of  to-day  is  a man-eater;  many  of  the  apes, 
and  especially  the  so-called  anthropoids,  rna}7  attack 
a man,  and  even  kill  him,  but  they  will  not  eat  his 
flesh.  But  David  realized  that  there  existed  in  his 
day  a great  man-eating  ape.  The  disposition  of  this 
ape  to  feed  upon  the  flesh  of  man,  reveals  the  fact 
that  the  “beast  of  the  earth”  and  the  “beast  of  the 
field”  are  identical,  as  shown  by  the  language  of 
Goliath  to  David:  “And  the  Philistine  said  unto 

David:  come  to  me,  and  I will  give  thy  flesh  to  the 
fowls  of  the  air  and  to  the  beasts  of  the  field.” 
(I  Sam.  xvii,  44) . Thus  Goliath  testifies  to  the  ex- 
istence of  a great  man-eating  ape,  known  in  his  day 
as  the  “ beast  of  the  field.”  All  the  circumstances 
indicate  that  this  creature  is  identical  with  the  “wild 
beasts  of  the  earth,”  referred  to  by  David  in  his  con- 
troversy with  Goliath  as  above  quoted.  In  Psalm  L, 
verse  11,  David  refers  to  the  “wild  beasts  of  the 
field.”  One  would  naturally  suppose  that  the  term 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


219 


“beast  of  the  field”  would  be  applied  solely  to  do- 
mesticated animals  of  draught  and  burthen  which 
men  employ  in  cultivating  their  fields;  but  such  is 
not  the  case;  anciently,  as  above  shown,  the  term 
“beast  of  the  field”  was  applied  to  a certain  race  of 
the  ape  species,  without  reference  to  whether  they 
were  in  a “wild,”  or  in  a domesticated  state. 

In  all  ages  of  his  history,  man  has  shown  a 
strong  disposition  to  cultivate  the  most  criminal  re- 
lations with  this  beast;  their  indulgence  in  these 
shameless  crimes  not  only  led  God  to  destroy  na- 
tion after  nation  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  but  has 
even  led  Him  to  obliterate  continents;  it  frequently 
occurs  that  God  in  His  wrath  and  disgust,  decrees 
that  peoples  who  abandon  themselves  to  these  de- 
grading crimes,  shall  die  violent  deaths;  and  that 
their  flesh  shall  furnish  food  for  this  man-eating  ape. 
In  these  just,  but  terrible  judgments,  we  find  addi- 
tional proof  that  the  “beast  of  the  earth,”  and  the 
“beast  of  the  field”  are  identical;  and  that  this  great 
ape  is  a man-eater.  In  support  of  our  position  we 
quote  from  the  scriptural  record  as  follows: 

The  following  is  God’s  threat  against  the  Israel- 
ites should  they  violate  His  laws;  and  we  should 
bear  in  mind  that  one  of  His  laws  to  Israel  was, 
Thou  shall  not  lie  with  any  beast. 

“And  thy  carcasses  shall  be  for  meat  unto  the 
fowls  of  the  air,  and  unto  the  beasts  of  the  earth,  and 
no  man  shall  fray  them  a^way.”  ( Deut . xxviii,  26) . 

Israel  violated  God’s  law  and  the  following 
judgment  was  issued  against  them: 

“And  the  carcasses  of  this  people  shall  be  meat 


220 


THE  TEMPTEK  OE  EYE. 


for  the  fowls  of  heaven,  and  for  the  beasts  of  the 
earth;  and  none  shall  fray  them  away.”  {Jer.  vii, 
33;  see  also  Jer.  xvi,  4,  Jer.  xix,  7,  Jer.  xxxiv,  20). 

Israel  was  led  into  the  indulgence  of  these 
crimes  by  her  priesthood,  as  shown  by  God’s  judg- 
ment against  them,  as  follows: 

“Son  of  man  prophesy  against  the  shepherds  of 
Israel,  prophesy,  and  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God  unto  the  shepherds:  Woe  be  to  the  shep- 
herds of  Israel  that  do  feed  themselves!  Should  not 
the  shepherds  feed  the  flocks?  Ye  eat  the  fat,  and 
ye  clothe  you  with  the  wool,  ye  kill  them  that  are 
fed:  but  ye  feed  not  the  flock.  * * * And  they 

were  scattered,  because  there  is  no  shepherd:  and 
they  became  meat  for  the  beasts  of  the  field,  when 
they  were  scattered.  * * * Therefore,  ye  shep- 

herds, hear  the  word  of  the  Lord;  As  I live,  saith 
the  Lord  God,  surely  because  my  flock  became  a 
prey,  and  my  flock  became  meat  to  every  beast  of 
the  field,  because  there  was  no  shepherd,  neither  did 
my  shepherds  search  for  my  flock,  but  my  shepherds 
fed  themselves,  and  fed  not  my  flock;  Therefore,  O, 
ye  shepherds,  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord;  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  God;  Behold,  I am  against  the  shepherds; 
and  I will  require  my  flock  at  their  hand,  and  cause 
them  to  cease  from  feeding  the  flock;  neither  shall 
the  shepherds  feed  themselves  any  more;  for  I will 
deliver  my  flock  from  their  mouth,  that  they  may 
not  be  meat  for  them.”  ( EzeJc . xxxiv,  2,  3,  4,  5,  etc.) . 

In  God’s  threat  against  Israel  in  case  they  vio- 
lated His  laws,  He  said  their  flesh  should  be  meat 
for  the  “beasts  of  the  earth;”  when  they  allowed 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


221 


the  clergy  (“shepherds”)  to  lead  them  into  viola- 
ting the  laws  of  God,  He  gave  their  flesh  as  meat  to 
the  “beasts  of  the  field.”  This  furnishes  the  most 
positive  proof  that  the  “ beast  of  the  earth  ” and  the 
“beast  of  the  field”  are  identical;  and  that  these  two 
terms  were  applied  to  a man-eating  ape. 

The  following  is  one  of  God’s  judgments  against 
the  Egyptians: 

“ Son  of  man,  set  thy  face  against  Pharaoh  King 
of  Egypt,  and  prophesy  against  him,  and  against  all 
Egypt:  Speak  and  say,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God; 
Behold,  I am  against  thee,  Pharaoh  King  of  Egypt. 
* * Thou  shalt  fall  upon  the  open  fields;  thou 

shalt  not  be  brought  together,  nor  gathered:  I have 
given  thee  for  meat  to  the  beasts  of  the  field  and  to 
the  fowls  of  heaven.”  ( EzeJc . xxix,  2,  3,  5) . 

The  following  is  God’s  judgment  against  Gog: 

“ Thou  shalt  fall  upon  the  mountains  of  Israel, 
thou,  and  all  thy  bands,  and  the  people  that  is  with 
thee:  I will  give  thee  unto  ravenous  birds  of  every 
sort,  and  to  the  beasts  of  the  field  to  be  devoured.” 
( Ezek . xxxix,  4) . 

This  mass  of  scriptural  evidence  from  the  in- 
spired writers  clearly  establishes  the  existence  of  a 
great  man-eating  ape,  known  to  the  ancients  as  the 
“beast  of  the  earth”  or  the  “beast  of  the  field.”  The 
loss  of  all  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  such  an 
animal  explains  our  failure  to  properly  understand 
and  appreciate  the  Bible;  and  our  ignorance  upon 
this  subject  is  largely  due  to  the  absurd  interpreta- 
tion of  the  biblical  terms  “ cattle”  and  “ beast”  made 
by  modern  theolgians,  both  Jew  and  Gentile. 


222 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


In  discussing  the  above  texts,  we  should  bear 
in  mind  that  we  are  not  discussing  tribes  of  savages 
in  some  wild  jungle  overrun  with  carnivorous  quad- 
rupeds such  as  the  lion,  tiger,  leopard  and  the  like. 
The  Israelites,  Egyptians,  etc.,  were  among  the  cul- 
tivated and  enlightened  people  of  ancient  times;  and 
their  countries  where  the  distressing  scenes  above 
narrated  were  enacted  were  densely  populated,  and 
in  the  highest  state  of  cultivation : no  large  carnivor- 
ous quadrupeds  roamed  at  large  through  these  coun- 
tries in  those  days.  A moment’s  reflection  should 
convince  us  that  it  would  require  thousands  of  car- 
nivorous animals,  whether  quadrupeds  or  bipeds, 
to  devour  the  flesh  of  the  immense  number  of  peo- 
ple who  were  slain  in  the  wars  with  which  God  af- 
flicted these  nations  for  their  crimes. 

The  “beast  of  the  field”  is  not  a carnivorous 
quadruped,  as  the  modern  theologian  would  have  us 
believe;  on  the  contrary,  like  man,  the  “beast  of  the 
field  ” is  omnivorous,  as  shown  by  the  following  law 
which  God  gave  Israel:  “And  six  years  thou  shalt 
sow  thy  land,  and  shalt  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof: 
But  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  it  lie  still;  that  the 
poor  of  thy  people  may  eat;  and  what  they  leave  the 
beasts  of  the  field  may  eat.  In  like  manner  thou 
shalt  deal  with  thy1'  vineyard,  and  with  thy  olive- 
yard.”  {Ex.  xxiii,  10,  11). 

What  use  would  the  products  of  the  fields,  or 
the  grapes  and  the  olives  be  to  carnivorous  quadru- 
peds such  as  the  lion,  tiger,  wolf  etc.?  These  car- 
nivores would  starve  to  death  in  the  midst  of  the 
greatest  abundance  of  such  food.  And  it  would  be 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


223 


absurd  to  suppose  that  God  would  command  the  Is- 
raelites to  turn  their  domestic  quadrupeds  of 
draught  and  burthen  loose  in  their  vineyards  and 
orchards  to  browse,  trample  down,  and  destroy  them 
every  seven  years;  besides  these  animals  will  not  eat 
grapes  and  olives. 

These  “ beasts  of  the  field  ” were  servants  of 
the  Israelites;  they  owned  tens  of  thousands  of  them. 
It  was  their  criminal  relations  with  these  apes  which 
led  to  the  destruction  of  the  Israelites  as  a nation, 
and  their  dispersion  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
We  shall  hereafter  prove  that  the  “ beasts  of  the 
field”  were  servants  to  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians, 
and  all  nations  of  antiquity,  as  well  as  to  many  na- 
tions of  modern  times.  The  Bible  makes  special 
mention  of  the  beast  of  the  field  as  a servant. 

As  shown  in  the  Mosaic  Record,  this  man-eat- 
ing ape  made  its  appearance  as  the  “beast  of  the 
earth;”  this  creature  stands  at  the  head  of  the  ape 
family,  just  as  the  lion  stands  at  the  head  of  the  cat 
family.  The  physical  and  mental  organisms  of  the 
ape  are  in  nearer  approach  to  those  of  man  than 
are  those  of  the  “ cattle  ” or  quadrupeds.  This  fact, 
taken  in  connection  with  their  possession  of  the 
erect  posture,  or  the  ability  to  assume  it  at  will, 
prove  them  to  be  the  highest  grade  of  animal.  This 
being  true  it  follows  that  the  “beast  of  the  earth,” 
standing  at  the  head  of  this  remarkable  family  of 
animals,  would  possess  a finer  physical  and  mental 
organism  than  any  of  the  so-called  anthropoids,  and 
would  in  this  respect  be  in  nearer  approach  to  man 
than  any  other  ape.  Hence,  the  “ beast  of  the 


224 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


earth  ” is  the  only  anthropoid  or  man-like  ape.  It 
was  evidently  his  possession  of  much  finer  physical 
and  mental  organisms  than  any  other  animal,  and 
which  pre-eminently  fits  him  for  the  position  of  ser- 
vant, that  prompted  Adam  to  name  him  the  “ beast 
of  the  field.”  “ And  Adam  gave  names  to  all  cattle, 
and  to  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  to  every  beast  of  the 
field.”  (Gen.  ii,  20).  This  is  the  first  mention  made 
of  this  animal  under  the  name  of  “ beast  of  the 
field”  but  after  this  he  is  frequently  referred  to  un- 
der this  name,  and  under  the  name  of  “ beast  of  the 
earth,”  and  often,  merely  as  the  “ beast.”  The 
quadrupeds  are  often  mentioned  as  “ cattle  ” 
“herds,”  or  “flocks;”  and  individual  species  of 
quadrupeds  are  often  referred  to  as  the  horse,  ox, 
swine,  etc.  But  the  apes  are  never  referred  to  as 
cattle,  herds  or  flocks.  By  observing  this  rule  we 
will  be  greatly  aided  in  our  investigations  of  the 
Bible.  But,  we  should  remember  that  the  cattle, 
and  even  the  creeping  things,  like  the  apes,  are  all 
beast,  in  the  sense  that  they  belong  to  the  flesh  of 
beasts.  The  term  “ beast,”  is  frequently  employed 
by  the  inspired  writers;  sometimes  it  is  intended  to 
include  all  the  land  animals;  occasional^  it  refers  to 
a quadruped;  but  generally  it  is  used  to  describe  the 
ape.  However,  by  observing  the  connection  in 
which  it  is  used,  we  will  find  no  difficulty  in  deter- 
mining the  matter. 

For  many  centuries  the  world  has  been  envel- 
oped in  a night  of  atheism;  the  atheists’  views  con- 
cerning man  and  his  relations  to  the  animals  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  theory  of  evolution,  which  degrades 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


225 


man  to  the  level  of  the  brute  by  attempting  to  estab- 
lish between  man  and  the  animals  a “blood  rela- 
tionship.” Under  these  demoralizing  conditions 
man’s  true  relations  to  the  animals  as  defined  by  the 
inspired  writers  have  been  forgotten.  The  boundary 
— the  line  of  separation — which  God  established  be- 
tween man  and  the  animals  has  also  been  obliterated; 
the  gibbon,  orang,  chimpanze,  and  gorilla,  errone- 
ously termed  “anthopoid,”  or  “man-like”  apes, 
though  unfit  for  domestic  purposes,  are  recognized 
as  the  highest  grade  of  animal,  and  are  now  sup- 
posed to  mark  the  line  of  separation  between  man 
and  the  apes.  All  knowledge  of  the  “beast  of  the 
field,”  whose  possession  of  more  perfect  physical 
and  mental  organisms  pre-eminently  distinguishes 
him  from  the  lower  apes,  and  correspondingly  ap- 
proximates him  to  man,  is  lost,  save  as  we  find  his 
existence,  and  the  physical  and  mental  character 
which  distinguish  him,  a matter  of  scriptural  record. 

Under  the  influence  of  atheism,  and  the  conse- 
quent loss  of  all  knowledge  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible  upon  these  important  subjects,  the  world  has 
been  led  to  believe  that  the  following  characteristics 
are  peculiar  to  man:  (1)  Mind  (the  animals  being 

accredited  with  mere  instinct) . (2)  Articulate 

speech.  (3)  A well-formed  hand  and  foot.  (4) 
The  erect  posture.  (5)  The  ability  to  fashion  im- 
plements for  a definite  purpose.  The  Duke  of  Ar- 
gyll, quoted  by  Sir  John  Lubbuck  ( Origin  of  Civiliza- 
tion) , while  admitting  that  monkeys  use  stones  to 
break  nuts,  says:  “Between  these  rudiments  of  in- 

tellectual perception  and  the  next  step  (that  of  adapt- 


226 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


ing  and  fashioning  an  implement  for  a particular 
purpose) , there  is  a gulf  in  which  lies  the  whole  im- 
measurable distance  between  man  and  the  brutes. 
(6)  It  is  also  universally  taught  that  woman  (the 
Adamic  female) , is  the  only  creature  with  which 
man  (the  Adamic  male) , may  associate  himself  car- 
nail}’  and  produce  offspring  that  will  be  indefinitely 
fertile;  and  that  man,  (the  Adamic  male) , is  the  only 
creature  with  which  woman  (the  Adamic  female) , 
may  associate  herself  carnally  and  produce  offspring 
that  will  be  indefinitely  fertile. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  these  characteristics  are 
all  combined  in  the  beast  of  the  field.  When  the 
minds  of  men  are  freed  from  the  grasp  of  atheism, 
and  the  great  intellects  of  the  world  are  turned  upon 
the  Bible,  (as  they  will  be) , it  will  be  discovered 
that  man  possesses  just  two  characteristics  that  are 
peculiar  to  him:  (1)  His  flesh  is  a different  kind 

of  flesh  from  that  of  the  fish,  and  fowl,  and  beast. 
(2)  Man  possesses  an  immortal  soul,  itself  a part  of 
the  substance  of  God. 

The  importance  of  the  beast  of  the  field  in  God’s 
plan  of  creation  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  shares 
with  man  the  distinction  of  having  been  specifically 
mentioned  in  the  narrative  of  creation;  the  rest  of 
the  animals,  are  merely  included  under  the  heads  of 
fish,  fowl,  and  beast. 

The  tempter  of  Eve  was  a beast  of  the  field,  as 
shown  by  the  language  of  the  text:  “Now,  the  ser- 
pent was  more  subtle  than  any  beast  of  the  field 
which  the  Lord  God  had  made.”  This  animal  pos- 
sessed articular  speech,  as  shown  by  its  conversation 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


227 


with  Eve,  which  is  a matter  of  scriptural  record;  it 
also  possessed  the  erect  posture,  as  shown  by  the 
curse  which  God  directed  against  its  posture,  and 
which  resulted  in  depriving  it  of  the  erect  posture 
and  degrading  it  to  that  of  the  lowest  of  the  creep- 
ing things.  The  beast  of  the  field  has  a hand,  as 
shown  by  God’s  command  to  the  Israelites  with  ref- 
erence to  Mount  Sinai:  “ There  shall  not  a hand 

touch  it  * * * whether  it  be  a beast  or  man.” 

(Ex.,  xix,  13) . We  also  find  that  in  the  book  of 
Jonah  reference  is  made  to  a beast  with  a hand: 
“ But  let  man  and  beast  be  covered  with  sackcloth 
and  cry  mightily  unto  God:  yea,  let  them  turn  every 
one  from  the  evil  of  his  way,  and  from  the  violence  that 
is  in  their  hands.”  (Jon.  iii,  8) . It  is  significant  that 
the  Rig  Veda  of  the  ancient  Aryans,  also  describes  in 
two  places  a beast  with  a hand.  The  fact  that  this 
beast  was  commanded,  like  the  men  of  Nineveh,  to 
“ cry  mightily  unto  God,”  indicates  that,  like  the 
men  of  Nineveh,  he  possessed  articular  speech.  The 
language  of  the  text  also  indicates  that  this  beast, 
when  domesticated,  and  associated  with  civilized 
people,  is  habitually  clothed.  The  beast  has  a foot: 
“No  foot  of  man  shall  pass  through  it,  nor  foot  of 
beast  shall  pass  through  it.”  * * * (Ezek. 

xxix,  11) . 

The  genital  organs  of  this  beast  are  so  nearly 
similar  to  those  of  man,  and  his  seminal  fluid  is  in 
such  close  affinity  to  that  of  man,  that  sexual  union 
between  opposite  sexes  of  man  and  this  beast  may 
result  in  the  production  of  offspring  that  will  be  in- 
definitely fertile;  this  is  demonstrated  in  the  case  of 


228 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Cain,  whose  wile,  though  not  of  his  hind  of  flesh, 
bore  him  offspring  that  was  indefinitely  fertile.  The 
Bible  abounds  with  instances  of  this  kind;  in  fact, 
the  Bible  is  largely  a history  of  the  long,  destructive 
conflict  which  has  raged  between  God  and  man,  be- 
cause of  man’s  social,  political,  and  religious  equality 
with  this  beast,  and  the  amalgamation  to  which 
these  crimes  inevitably  lead. 

The  Bible  teajhes  that  man  was  not  created  and 
turned  loose  upon  the  earth  like  an  animal  with 
nothing  to  do  beyond  the  gratification  of  his  natural 
desires;  but  that  he  was  created  for,  and  assigned  to 
a great  task  — the  development  of  all  the  resources 
of  the  earth;  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  task  he 
was  commanded  to  exercise  control  over  the  ani- 
mals; to  develop  all  the  resources  of  this  globe 
would  require  a long  period  of  time,  and  an  incal- 
culable amount  of  labor,  and  the  initial  step  in  this 
great  task  is  soil  tillage;  and  when  Adam  was  cre- 
ated he  was  placed  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  “to  dress 
it  and  to  keep  it.”  This  implies  his  possession  of 
domestic  plants  and  they  require  cultivation.  Yet  it 
is  a significant  fact  that  Adam  was  not  compelled  to 
personally  till  the  ground,  and  thus  eat  bread  in  the 
sweat  of  his  face  until  after  he  had  violated  the  laws 
of  God;  and  then  only  as  a punishment  for  his  crime: 
“ And  unto  Adam  he  said,  Because  thou  hast  heark- 
ened unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and  hast  eaten  of 
the  tree,  of  which  I commanded  thee,  saying,  Thou 
shalt  not  eat  of  it:  cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake; 
in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life. 
* * * In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


229 


bread,  until  thou  return  unto  the  ground.  * * * 

Therefore  the  Lord  sent  him  forth  from  the  Garden 
of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground  from  whence  he  was 
taken.”  (Gen.  iii,  17,  19,  23). 

Observe  the  language  of  the  text:  Because  * * * 
thou  hast  eaten  of  the  tree  whereof  I commanded 
thee,  saying,  Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  * * * In 

the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,”  etc. 
Thus  clearly  stating  that  this  was  a sentence  which 
God  imposed  upon  Adam  for  his  violation  of  His 
law.  But  this  sentence,  that  he  should  personally 
till  the  ground,  and  thus  eat  bread  in  the  sweat  of 
his  face,  was  confined  to  Adam  who  had  offended; 
there  is  nothing  in  the  text  to  indicate  that  it  de- 
scends to  his  unborn  offspring  who  had  not  offended; 
we  shall  hereafter  prove  that  it  did  not  so  descend. 

Inasmuch  as  this  was  a sentence  imposed  upon 
Adam  for  his  violation  of  God’s  law,  it  follows  that 
if  he  had  not  violated  God’s  law,  he  would  not  have 
been  compelled  to  personally  “ till  the  ground,”  and 
thus  eat  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his  face;  at  the  same 
time  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  obligation  to  dress 
and  to  keep  the  Garden  of  Eden,  which  required  soil 
tillage,  was  binding  upon  Adam  from  the  moment  of 
his  assignment  to  this  task.  But  how  was  Adam  to 
dress  and  keep  the  Garden  of  Eden,  which  required 
soil  tillage,  and  not  personally  till  the  ground?  If 
we  adhere  to  the  universally  accepted  theory  that 
man  is  the  only  creature  capable  of  making  and 
handling  tools,  this  question  brings  us  face  to  face 
with  an  issue  which  involves  the  validity  of  the 
Bible,  since  it  reveals  an  apparent  contradiction  in 


230 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  teachings  of  scripture.  The  Bible  plainly  teaches: 
(1)  That  God  created  Adam  and  placed  him  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it,  which  re- 
quired him  to  cultivate  it,  and  this  of  course  neces- 
sitates manual  labor.  (2)  That  Adam  lived  for  a 
very  considerable  time  in  the  Garden  of  Eden  in 
perfect  harmony  with  his  Maker,  and  obeyed  the 
laws  of  God,  which  required  him  to  dress  and  to  keep 
the  Garden,  that  is  to  cultivate  it;  but  that  he  finally 
violated  Divine  law;  then,  as  a punishment  for  his 
offense,  God  compelled  him  to  personally  “till  the 
ground,”  and  thus  eat  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his  face. 

In  order  to  reconcile  this  apparent  descrepancj7, 
we  must  repudiate  the  modern  theory  that  man  is 
the  only  creature  who  possesses  the  ability  to  make 
and  handle  tools;  we  must  accept  the  teachings  of 
the  scriptures  and  the  sciences  that  there  is  an  ani- 
mal upon  which  God  bestowed  physical  form  and 
mental  capacity  sufficient  to  enable  it  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  servant;  this  creature  must  of  course 
be  a tool-making , tool-handling  animal. 

Such  an  animal  must  have  hands;  this  necessi- 
tates his  being  a biped,  for  no  quadruped  could 
meet  these  requirements;  it  would  be  as  absurd  to 
suppose  that  a leg  could  terminate  in  a hand  as 
to  suppose  that  an  arm  could  terminate  in  a foot. 
Hence,  we  must  seek  this  animal  among  the  apes. 
And  not  one  of  the  recognized  apes  of  to-day  could 
discharge  the  multifarious  duties  of  a servant;  we 
must  seek  for  a higher  grade  of  ape  than  any  of 
these;  and  inasmuch  as  the  so-called  anthropoids 
can  walk  erect,  it  would  require  but  a slight  im- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


231 


provement  on  their  organism  to  produce  an  ape 
whose  habitual  posture  would  be  the  erect.  Besides, 
as  it  was  a part  of  God’s  plan  of  creation  to  provide 
man  with  a servant  in  the  person  of  a tool-making, 
tool-handling  ape,  no  good  reason  could  be  advanced 
why  this  creature  should  be  mute;  a mute  servant 
would  be  at  a great  disadvantage,  and  his  value  cor- 
respondingly lessened.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
value  of  a servant  is  immeasurably  increased  by  the 
possession  of  articulated  speech;  articulate  speech  is 
as  essential  in  the  servant  as  in  the  master. 

With  the  aid  of  a lot  of  tool-making,  tool-hand- 
ling animals  possessing  the  erect  posture  and  articu- 
late speech,  and  thus  fitted  for  discharging  the  du- 
ties of  servant,  it  would  have  been  easy  for  Adam 
“ to  dress  and  to  keep  ” the  Garden  of  Eden,  with 
all  the  cultivation  that  this  would  require,  with  only 
such  physical  labor  as  is  inseparable  from  mental 
labor.  With  the  assistance  of  such  creatures  it 
would  also  have  been  possible  for  the  descendants 
of  Adam  to  have  developed  all  the  resources  of  this 
globe  with  only  such  physical  labor  as  is  inseparable 
from  mental  labor. 

In  discussing  the  possible  achievements  of  a 
tool-making,  tool-handling  animal,  Mr.  Darwin 
says:  “One  can  hardly  doubt  that  a man-like  ani- 
mal who  possessed  a hand  and  arm  sufficiently  per- 
fect to  throw  a stone  with  precision,  or  to  form  a 
flint  into  a rude  tool,  could  with  sufficient  practice, 
as  far  as  mechanical  skill  alone  is  concerned,  make 
almost  anything  which  a civilized  man  can  make.” 
( Descent  of  Man,  p.  56). 


232 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


God  made  just  such  an  animal,  and  designed 
that  he  should  be  a servant  to  man,  and  we  shall 
hereafter  prove  that  the  evidences  of  his  art  which 
antedate  the  creation  of  man,  are  found  upon  every 
continent  of  the  earth,  and  he  exists  upon  one  of  the 
continents  of  the  earth  to-day.  These  animals  did 
all  the  manual  labor  in  the  Garden  of  Eden  that  was 
necessary  “to  dress  it  and  keep  it,”  while  Adam  did 
the  mental  labor.  But  when  Adam  violated  Divine 
law  God  deprived  him  of  these  animals — his  ser- 
vants— and  compelled  him  to  personally  “till  the 
ground,”  and  thus  eat  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his 
face  as  a punishment  for  his  crime.  This  animal 
was  designed  in  the  creation  to  do  the  manual  labor 
necessary  to  “ subdue  ” the  earth,  under  man’s  intel- 
ligent control. 

The  presence  of  this  animal  clearly  indicates 
that  it  was  not  the  design  of  the  Heavenly  Father 
that  His  earthly  son  should  be  the  subject  of  manual 
labor  beyond  that  which  is  inseparable  from  mental 
labor.  The  theory  of  the  modern  theologian,  both 
Jew  and  Gentile,  that  it  was  the  original  design  of 
God  that  man  should  eat  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his 
face,  finds  no  support  in  scripture.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  opposed  by  the  plain  teachings  of  the  Bible. 

When  the  fish,  and  fowl,  and  beasts,  were  all  made 
after  their  kind,  God  then  said:  “ Let  us  make  man 

in  our  image,  after  our  likeness:  and  let  them  have 
dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth, 
and  over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the 
earth.”  (Gen.  i,  26).  In  this  proposition  to  make 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


233 


man,  the  central  idea  is  “ dominion  ” — control.  In 
this  text  the  design  of  God  in  creating  man  is  clearly 
revealed;  man’s  duties  were  to  be  mental  rather  than 
physical ; he  was  to  be  the  dominant,  controlling  power 
of  the  earth.  The  idea  of  man  being  the  subject  of 
manual  toil  is  wholly  disassociated  with  the  expressed 
design  of  God  in  creating  man. 

When  man  was  created,  “male  and  female,” 
“ God  blessed  them  and  said  unto  them,  be  fruitful 
and  multiply, and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it; 
and  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over 
the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that 
moveth  upon  the  earth.”  (Gen.  i,  28) . In  this  assign- 
ment of  man  to  the  duties  upon  the  earth  for  which 
he  was  designed,  the  central  idea  is  “ dominion  ” — 
control.  No  hint  is  here  conveyed  that  it  was  God’s 
intention  to  consign  man  to  a life  of  physical  toil;  on 
the  contrary,  the  plain  language  of  the  text  shows 
that  man  was  made  ruler  of  the  earth.  Man’s  exalted 
position  is  clearly  defined  by  David  when,  in  speak- 
ing of  God’s  creation  of  man,  he  said:  “ Thou  madst 

him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  Thy  hands; 
Thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet:  All  sheep 

and  oxen,  yea,  and  the  beasts  of  the  field;  the  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  whatsoever 
passeth  through  the  paths  of  the  sea.”  ( Ps . viii,  8) . 

Further  evidence  that  it  is  not  God’s  desire  that 
man  should  lead  a life  of  physical  toil,  is  shown  by 
his  generous  treatment  of  the  Israelites  in  giving 
them  the  land  of  Canaan:  “And  it  shall  be,  when 

the  Lord  thy  God  shall  have  brought  thee  into  the 
land  which  he  sware  unto  thy  fathers,  to  Abraham, 


234 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE, 


to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob,  to  give  the  goodly  cities, 
which  thou  buildest  not,  and  houses  filled  full  of  all 
good  things,  which  thou  fillest  not,  and  wells  digged, 
which  thou  diggest  not,  vineyards  and  olive  trees, 
which  thou  plantest  not,”  etc.  ( Deut . vi,  10,  11). 

The  highly  developed  condition  of  this  country 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  supported  “ seven  na- 
tions ” greater  than  Israel.  This  “goodly  land”  with 
its  great  wealth,  the  accumulation  of  ages,  was  di- 
vided among  the  tribes  of  Israel,  and  was  subdivided 
among  the  families  composing  those  tribes.  This, 
with  their  immense  wealth  in  “jewels  of  silver,  and 
jewels  of  gold,”  of  which  they  had  “ spoiled  the 
Egyptians,”  was  sufficient  to  make  every  Israelitish 
family  rich;  and  thus  place  them  beyond  the  neces- 
sity of  physical  toil.  Besides,  the  Canaanites  owned 
immense  numbers  of  beasts  of  the  field,  and  these 
with  the  rest  of  their  possessions  were  transferred  to 
the  Israelites;  we  have  already  shown  that  the  Is- 
raelites were  given  special  commands  with  reference 
to  allowing  the  beasts  of  the  field  a part  of  the  pro- 
ducts of  their  fields,  vineyards,  etc.,  every  seven 
years;  and  in  this  we  have  the  most  positive  proof 
that  these  animals  were  numbered  among  their  pos- 
sessions. 

God’s  treatment  of  the  Israelites  in  giving  them 
the  land  of  Canaan,  with  all  that  was  necessary  for 
their  comfort  and  happiness,  and  His  treatment  of 
Adam  in  giving  him  the  Garden  of  Eden  and  all 
that  was  necessary  for  his  comfort  and  happiness 
was  identical.  God  gave  the  Israelites,  who  were 
descendants  of  Adam,  the  land  of  Canaan  which  they 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


235 


had  not  developed;  and  provided  them  with  im- 
mense numbers  of  beasts  of  the  fields  as  servants  to 
serve  them;  and  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  God  did  more  for  the  Israelites  in  their 
depraved,  fallen  condition,  than  he  did  for  “ Adam 
the  son  of  God”  in  his  original  state  of  purity. 
Hence,  we  should  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  God 
gave  Adam  the  Garden  of  Eden,  the  most  magnifi- 
cent estate  the  world  has  ever  known,  and  one  which 
Adam  had  not  developed;  and  that  He  had  also  pro- 
vided him  with  numbers  of  the  beasts  of  the  field  as 
servants  to  serve  him.  The  cases  of  Adam  in  Eden 
and  the  Israelites  in  Canaan  clearly  prove  that  it  was 
not  the  original  design  of  God  to  consign  man  to  a 
life  of  physical  toil,  but  that  this  distressing  condi- 
tion is  a punishment  which  God  visits  upon  man  for 
violating  Divine  law.  That  God  desired  that  man 
should  do  only  such  physical  labor  as  is  inseparable 
from  mental  labor,  is  shown  by  his  providing  him 
with  a high-grade  ape  in  the  person  of  the  beast  of 
the  field  which,  as  a servant,  should  serve  him. 

In  the  following  narrative  of  the  plagues  sent 
upon  the  Egyptians  to  compel  them  to  release  the 
Israelites,  a flood  of  light  is  thrown  upon  the  distinc- 
tions between  “cattle”  and  “ beasts,”  and  the  rela- 
tive value  of  each.  After  afflicting  the  Egyptians 
with  lice,  fleas,  etc.,  God  said  to  Moses,  “Go  unto 
Pharaoh,  and  tell  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of 
the  Hebrews,  Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may  serve 
me.  For  if  thou  refuse  to  let  them  go,  and  will  hold 
them  still,  behold  the  hand  of  the  Lord  is  upon  thy 
cattle  which  is  in  the  field,  upon  the  horses,  upon 


236 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  asses,  upon  the  camels,  upon  the  oxen,  and  upon 
the  sheep;  there  shall  be  a very  grievous  murrian. 
And  the  Lord  shall  sever  between  the  cattle  of  Is- 
rael and  the  cattle  of  Egypt:  and  there  shall  nothing 
die  of  all  that  is  the  children’s  of  Israel.  And  the 
Lord  appointed  a set  time,  saying,  Tomorrow  the 
Lord  shall  do  this  thing  in  the  land.  And  the  Lord 
did  that  thing  on  the  morrow,  and  all  the  cattle  of 
Egypt  died:  but  of  the  cattle  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael died  not  one.  And  Pharaoh  sent,  and,  behold, 
there  was  not  one  of  the  cattle  of  the  Israelites  dead. 
And  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  was  hardened,  and  he  did 
not  let  the  people  go.  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses  and  to  Aaron,  Take  to  you  handfuls  of  ashes  of 
the  furnace,  and  let  Moses  sprinkle  it  toward  the 
heavens  in  the  sight  of  Pharaoh.  And  it  shall  be- 
come small  dust  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  shall 
be  a boil  breaking  forth  with  blains  upon  man,  and 
upon  beast,  throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt.  And 
they  took  ashes  of  the  furnace,  and  stood  before 
Pharaoh;  and  Moses  sprinkled  it  up  toward  heaven; 
and  it  became  a boil  breaking  forth  with  blains  upon 
man,  and  upon  beast.”  ( Ex . ix,  1,  2,  3,  etc.). 

The  broad  distinction  which  God  makes  be- 
tween  the  cattle  and  the  beasts,  is  shown  (1)  by  the 
fact  that  the  cattle  were  afflicted  on  one  day;  while 
the  beast  were  afflicted  on  the  following  day.  (2) 
That  the  cattle  were  afflicted  with  a “very  grievous 
murrian,”  while  the  beast  were  afflicted  with  “boils, 
breaking  forth  with  blains,”  just  as  the  Egyptians 
were.  The  fact  that  the  beasts  were  afflicted  with 
the  same  disease  as  were  the  Egyptians,  while  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


237 


cattle  were  afflicted  at  a different  time,  and  with 
a different  disease,  clearly  proves  that  the  physical 
organism,  of  the  beast  was  altogether  different  from 
that  of  the  cattle,  and  correspondingly  approximated 
that  of  man.  The  significance  of  this  is  further  in- 
creased when  we  consider  that  each  succeeding 
plague  visited  upon  the  Egyptians  was  more  injuri- 
ous to  them  than  its  predecessor.  This  indicates  the 
relative  value  of  the  cattle  and  the  beasts;  and  shows 
that  the  beasts  were  far  more  valuable  than  the  cat- 
tle. This  is  easily  comprehended  when  we  under- 
stand that  the  cattle  were  quadrupeds,  horses,  oxen, 
camels,  sheep,  etc.;  while  the  beasts  were  servants 
(bipeds — apes) . Prior  to  the  late  sectional  war  in 
the  United  States,  the  people  of  the  Southern  States, 
like  the  Egyptians,  owned  their  own  servants,  as  well 
as  domestic  quadrupeds,  such  as  horses,  oxen,  sheep, 
etc.  Their  servants  were  far  more  valuable  than 
their  quadrupeds;  a negro  servant  wras  worth  from 
$1,000.00  to  $1,500.00;  while  a horse  was  worth,  say 
$100.00;  a cow  or  ox,  $25.00;  a sheep,  $2.00,  and  so 
on.  The  relative  value  of  the  cattle  or  quadrupeds 
and  the  beasts  or  servants,  was  perhaps  much  the 
same  in  Egypt  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  writing. 

Further  evidence  of  the  broad  distinction  be- 
tween the  “cattle”  and  the  “beasts”  and  their  rela- 
tive value,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  Egyptians 
are  accredited  with  owning  both  cattle  (quadrupeds)  '; 
and  beasts  (servants) , while  the  Israelites  are  ac- 
credited with  owning  cattle  (quadrupeds) , but  no 
beasts  (servants)  see  {Ex.  x,  9,  24,  25;  Ex.  x,  11,  38). 
This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  Egyptians  were 


238 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  masters  of  the  country  and  were  rich  and  able  to 
own  servants;  while  the  Israelites  were  themselves 
in  bondage  to  the  Egyptians,  and  were  poor  and  un- 
able to  own  servants. 

The  following  are  lists  of  personal  property 
owned  by  Abraham  and  Esau,  his  grandson: 

“And  he  said,  I am  Abraham’s  servant.  And 
the  Lord  hath  blessed  my  master  greatly;  and  he 
has  become  great;  and  He  hath  given  him  flocks  and 
herds,  and  silver,  and  gold,  and  men  servants,  and 
maid  servants,  and  camels  and  asses.”  (Gen.  xxiv, 
34,  35). 

“And  Esau  took  his  wives,  and  his  sons,  and  all 
the  persons  of  his  house,  and  his  cattle,  and  all  his 
beasts,  and  all  his  substance,  which  he  had  got  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  went  into  the  country  from  the 
face  of  his  brother  Jacob.  For  their  riches  were 
more  than  that  they  might  dwell  together;  and  the  land 
wherein  they  were  strangers  could  not  bear  them 
because  of  their  cattle.”  (Gen.  xxxvi,  6,  7). 

Abraham  and  Esau  were  kinsman;  they  lived  in 
Canaan,  though  at  different  times;  they  were  engaged 
in  the  same  pursuits;  they  were  each  rich;  they  each 
owned  immense  herds  of  cattle  of  various  kinds;  yet 
we  find  that  Abraham  is  accredited  with  owning 
herds  and  flocks  (cattle) , and  servants,  but  no  beasts; 
while  Esau  is  accredited  with  owning  cattle  and 
beasts,  but  no  servants.  We  can  readily  understand 
that  Abraham’s  servants  attended  to  his  cattle;  but 
who  attended  to  Esau’s  cattle?  Did  his  “beasts”  do 
this?  If  they  did  not,  what  did  they  do,  and  what 
use  did  he  have  for  them?  The  distinction  between 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


239 


Esau’s  “cattle”  and  his  “beasts”  is  as  marked  as 
that  between  Abraham’s  “herds  and  flocks”  and  his 
“servants.”  The  Babylonians,  Israelites,  Egyptians, 
Romans,  etc.,  owned  both  white  and  black  servants; 
perhaps  Abraham  did;  he  certainly  owned  white  ser- 
vants, for,  in  obedience  to  Divine  command,  he  cir- 
cumcised them,  and  it  is  highly  probable  that  at 
least  a part  of  his  servants  were  blacks.  However, 
we  are  not  so  much  interested  in  Abraham’s  servants 
as  we  are  in  Esau’s  beasts.  From  the  characteristics 
possessed  by  the  beast  of  the  field,  it  is  evident  that 
Esau’s  “beasts”  were  “beasts  of  the  field,”  and  that 
they  discharged  the  duty  of  servants  in  attending  to 
Esau’s  “cattle;”  and  it  is  highly  probable,  that  a 
part,  at  least,  of  Abraham’s  servants  were  “beasts  of 
the  field.”  All  the  circumstances  indicate  that,  (with 
the  exception  of  Abraham’s  white  servants) , the 
beasts  of  Esau,  and  the  “ servants”  of  Abraham  were 
“beasts  of  the  field;”  and  that  in  ancient  times,  the 
terms  “beast,”  “beasts  of  the  field,”  and  servant, 
were  all  applied  to  the  “ beasts  of  the  field.” 

The  most  positive  evidence  that  God  designed 
the  “beasts  of  the  field”  as  servants  to  man,  and 
that  the  ancients  owned  and  employed  them  in  the 
capacity  of  servants,  is  shown  by  the  following: 
“ And  now  have  I given  all  these  lands  to  Nebuch- 
adnezzar, the  King  of  Babylon,  my  servant;  and  the 
beasts  of  the  field  have  I given  him  also  to  serve 
him.”  ( Jer.  xxvii,  6) . Thus  God  took  from  certain 
nations  their  servants,  the  “beasts  of  the  field,” 
and  gave  them  to  Nebuchadnezzar  “ to  serve  him.” 
We  have  frequently  approached  clergymen  of 


240 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EVE. 


the  Jewish,  Catholic,  and  Protestant  faith,  with  the 
inquiry,  what  are  the  beasts  of  the  field,  so  often  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Bible?  The  substance  of  their  reply 
has  invariably  been  that,  “the  beasts  of  the  field  are 
our  domestic  quadrupeds  of  draught  and  burthen, 
with  which  we  cultivate  our  fields,  and  use  for  other 
domestic  purposes.”  The  absurdity  of  this  explana- 
tion is  shown  by  the  fact  that  our  domestic  quadru- 
peds with  which  we  cultivate  the  fields,  and  use  for 
other  purposes  of  draught  and  burthen,  are  all 
herbivorous  animals;  they  subsist  on  grass,  hay,  and 
the  cereals;  not  one  of  them  is  carnivorous;  they  are 
not  even  omnivorous;  and  certainly  our  horses,  oxen, 
camels,  etc.,  would  not  feed  upon  the  flesh  of  man; 
besides,  according  to  the  Bible  classification  of  the 
land  animals,  our  horses,  oxen,  camels,  etc.,  would 
be  placed  under  the  head  of  cattle.  On  the  other 
hand  the  Biblical  “ beast  of  the  field,”  is  omnivorous ; 
and  even  prefers  the  flesh  of  man  as  food.  Besides, 
under  the  Biblical  classification  of  the  land  animals, 
the  “beast  of  the  field”  must  be  placed  under  the 
head  of  beasts,  (bipeds — apes) . In  addition  to  this, 
the  “beast  of  the  field”  possesses  all  the  character- 
ristics  of  a servant,  which  pre-eminently  distinguish 
him  from  the  “cattle”  or  quadrupeds. 

One  who  had  never  investigated  the  subject, 
would  naturally  suppose  the  Jewish  rabbi  of  to-day 
is  perfectly  familiar  with  the  language  of  his  ances- 
tors of  thirty  or  more  centuries  ago;  and  that  he 
could  promptly  give  us  the  proper  definition  of  any 
Avord  in  the  Hebrew  language.  But,  unfortunately, 
this  is  not  the  case;  the  JeAV  possesses  a mere  frag- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


241 


ment  of  the  language  of  his  ancestors;  the  definition 
of  many  Hebrew  terms  is  lost,  and  their  true  mean- 
ing is  as  much  a matter  of  doubt  and  speculation 
with  the  Jew  of  to-day  as  with  the  Gentile.  We  as- 
sert without  fear  of  intelligent  contradiction,  that,  if 
a copy  of  the  Mosaic  Record,  written  as  it  originally 
was,  in  the  ancient  Hebrew,  could  be  found  to-day, 
neither  Jew  nor  Gentile  could  properly  read  and  in- 
terpret it.  Having  lost  the  meaning  of  many  terms 
which  the  ancient  Hebrews  applied  to  certain  ani- 
mals, the  Jew  of  to-day,  like  the  Gentile,  is  unable 
to  identify  many  animals  by  their  ancient  Hebrew 
names.  From  the  many  cases  of  this  kind  which 
we  might  quote,  we  present  the  following: 

In  discussing  the  Hebrew  term  sheretz,  Mr. 
Dawson  says: 

“ One  peculiar  group  of  sheretz  is  especially  dis- 
tinguished by  name — the  tanninim,  or  ‘great  whales’ 
of  our  version.  It  would  be  amusing,  had  we  time, 
to  notice  the  variety  of  conjecturers  to  which  this 
word  has  given  rise,  and  the  perplexities  of  com- 
mentators in  reference  to  it.  In  our  version  and 
the  Septuagint  it  is  usually  rendered  dragon;  but  in 
this  place  the  seventy  have  thought  proper  to  put 
Jcetos  (whale) , and  our  translators  have  followed 
them.  Subsequent  translators  and  commentators 
have  laid  under  contribution  all  sorts  of  marine 
monsters,  including  the  sea-serpent,  in  their  en- 
deavors to  attach  a precise  meaning  to  the  word; 
while  others  have  been  content  to  admit  that  it 
may  signify  any  kind  or  all  kinds  of  large  aquatic 
animals.”  ( The  Origin  of  the  World,  p.  213). 


242 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Discussing  the  term  tan,  Mr.  Dawson  says: 

“Tan  occurs  in  twelve  places,  and  from  these 
we  can  gather  that  it  inhabits  ruined  cities,  deserts, 
and  places  to  which  ostriches  resort,  that  it  suckles 
its  young,  is  of  predaceous  and  shy  habits,  utters  a 
wailing  cry,  and  is  not  of  large  size,  nor  formidable 
to  man.  The  most  probable  conjectures  as  to  the 
animal  intended  is  that  of  Gesenius,  who  supposes 
it  to  be  the  jackal.”  {Ibid,  p.  213,  214) . 

“Behemoth — This  word  has  long  been  consid- 
ered one  of  the  dubia  vexata  of  critics  and  commen- 
tators, but  modern  commentators  generally  believe 
the  hippopotamus  to  be  denoted  by  the  original 
word.  Behemah  and  behemoth  are  general  terms 
for  all  large  mammalia,  in  which  it  is  constantly 
used  in  the  Hebrew;  and  also  the  specific  designa- 
tion of  the  hippopotamus;  to  this  animal,  and  to  this 
alone,  it  can  apply  in  the  book  of  Job;  and  in  this 
case  only  the  translators  of  A.  V.  being  without  ac- 
curate knowledge,  wisely  abstained  from  any  attempt 
to  render  the  original.  * * * It  has  been  said 

that  some  parts  of  the  description  in  Job  cannot  ap- 
ply to  the  hippopotamus;  the  20th  verse,  for  in- 
stance, where  it  is  said:  The  mountains  bring  him 
forth  food.”  {Smith,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Yol.  I, 
p.  383) . 

The  hippopotamus  is  an  amphibian,  and  it  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  that  “The  mountains  bring 
him  forth  food;”  water  animals  do  not  seek  their 
food  on  the  mountains. 

Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  written  by  Sir 
William  Smith,  is  a standard  authority  with  both  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


243 


Jew  and  Gentile  clergy  of  the  day;  yet  it  can  give 
us  no  information  that  will  enable  us  to  identify  the 
behemoth.  The  same  is  true  of  other  animals,  among 
them  the  “beast  of  the  field;”  and  if  Jewish  theolo- 
gians possessed  any  knowledge  of  these  matters  the 
Gentiles  could  obtain  it  of  them;  but  the  Jew  has 
lost  this  knowledge. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  “the 
Hebrew  language  was  already  a dead  language.  The 
popular  dialect  was  the  Aramaic,  and  the  Hebrew  of 
Moses,  David,  and  the  prophets  had  become  a sort 
of  classical  and  sacred  language,  known  only  to  the 
oldest  and  the  learned.  It  was  an  object  of  academ- 
ical acquisition.  It  was  therefore  necessary  to  ex- 
plain and  translate  or  expound  the  writings.” 
(Philip  Schaff,  Art.  The  Bible,  Appleton’s  Universal 
Encyclopaedia,  Yol.  II) . 

Aramaic  was  the  language  of  a Semetic  people 
who  lived  north  of  Palestine.  “ The  Aramaic  lan- 
guage, a branch  of  the  Semitic,  was  divided  into  two 
forms  or  dialects — the  Syriac,  or  West  Aramaic,  and 
the  Chaldee,  or  East  Aramaic.  The  former  was  the 
language  commonly  spoken  by  the  Jews  in  Palestine 
at  the  Christian  era.”  (C.  H.  Toy,  Art.  Aramaic, 
Ibid,  Vol.  I) . 

Mr.  Schaff,  in  discussing  the  desire  of  the  Jews 
for  a knowledge  of  the  original  Hebrew,  after  their 
return  from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  says:  “One 

result  of  the  zeal  of  the  Jews  for  the  original  Hebrew 
was  the  publication  of  paraphrases  in  the  Aramaic 
or  popular  dialect,  which  were  called  Targumim 
(From  a root  signifying  to  ‘interpret’).  They  pre- 


244 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


sent  the  rabbinical  and  traditional  interpretation  of 
the  scriptures.”  {Ibid,  Yo\.  II). 

“Targurn:  A name  given  by  the  Jews  to  the 

Aramaean  translations  and  paraphrases  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  became  necessary  when  Hebrew 
was  superseded  by  Aramaean  as  the  spoken  language 
of  Palestine.  The  word  occurs  for  the  first  time  in 
Ezra  iv,  7;  but  it  is  impossible  to  say  when  these 
translations  were  first  made — unofficial  ones  prob- 
ably at  an  ealy  date.”  {Ibid,  Art.  Targurn,  Vol.  XI). 

Thus  it  is  shown  (1)  that  the  Hebrew  was  a 
dead  language  at  least  twenty- five  centuries  ago;  (2) 
that  the  Aramaic  language  superseded  the  Hebrew, 
and  became  the  popular  language  of  the  Jews  in  Pal- 
estine centuries  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  (3) 
That  when  the  Aramaic  superseded  the  Hebrew  as 
the  popular  language  of  Palestine,  it  was  necessary 
to  translate  and  to  paraphrase  certain  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament  into  the  Aramaic;  (4)  that  such 
translations  and  paraphrases  were  called  Targurn. 

In  contemplating  the  Targurn,  and  the  probable 
motives  which  led  to  its  production,  it  becomes  plain 
that,  the  learned  paraphrasers  who  translated  it  into 
the  Aramaic,  fully  realized  that  it  contained  the  true 
meaning  of  certain  passages  and  terms  in  the  old 
Hebrew  scriptures,  which  it  was  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  the  masses  of  the  people  to  understand. 
No  other  motive  could  have  led  those  learned  He- 
brews to  paraphrase  certain  passages  and  terms  of 
the  old  Hebrew  scriptures,  and  not  the  whole. 
These  paraphrases  were  known  to  be  of  vital  im- 
portance; and  it  is  significant  that  the  Hebrew  term 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


245 


translated  “ beast  of  the  field/’  in  our  English  ver- 
sion, is  found  in  the  Targum.  The  Targum  removes 
all  doubt  as  to  whether  the  “ beast  of  the  field  ” is  a 
quadruped,  or  a biped,  and  contributes  much  toward 
identifying  this  animal.  Hence,  these  ancient  para- 
phrases are  of  vital  importance. 

It  frequently  happens  that  even  fairly  well  edu- 
cated people  find  it  difficult  to  remember  the  defini- 
tion of  a term  such  as  paraphrase,  which  is  not  in 
every  day  use;  this  lapse  of  memory  may  occur  when 
there  is  no  dictionary  at  hand;  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  may  be  thus  embarrassed  while  reading 
this  part  of  our  work,  we  give  the  definition  of  the 
term  paraphrase.  “ Paraphrase:  1.  A free  transla- 

tion or  rendering  of  a passage;  a re-statement  of  a 
passage,  sentence,  or  work,  in  which  the  sense  of  the 
original  is  retained,  but  expressed  in  other  words 
and  generally  more  fully,  for  the  purpose  of  clearer 
and  fuller  explanation;  a setting  forth  in  ample  terms 
of  the  signification  of  a text,  passage,  or  word.  * * * 

“ 2.  To  express,  explain,  or  interpret  in  fuller 
and  clearer  words  the  significance  of  a passage,  state- 
ment or  work;  to  translate  or  re-state  freely  and  fully 
but  without  losing  or  changing  the  original  mean- 
ing.” ( Universal  Dictionary,  Vol.  III). 

Thus  the  Targum  was  merely  an  Aramsean  trans- 
lation of  the  Hebrew  in  which  certain  passages, 
terms,  etc.,  were  re-stated,  ‘ but  expressed  in  differ- 
ent words/  1 without  losing  or  changing  ’ the  sense 
of  the  original  Hebrew. 

Sir  William  Smith  gives  the  following  definition 
of  the  term  ‘ beast  ’ : 


246 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


“Beast.  1.  B’hemah,  ( jumentum , hestia,  ani- 
mantia,  pecos;  ‘beast/  ‘cattle’),  which  is  the  gen- 
eral name  for  ‘ domestic  cattle  ’ of  any  kind,  is  used 
to  denote  ‘ any  large  quadruped,’  as  opposed  to 
fowls  and  creeping  things;  or,  the  word  may  denote 
a wild  beast. 

“2.  Bg’ir  (jumentum,  ‘beast,’  ‘cattle’)  is  used 
used  either  collectively  of  ‘ all  kinds  of  cattle  ’ like 
the  Latin  pecos;  or,  especially  of  ‘beasts  of  burden.’ 
This  word,  which  is  much  rarer  than  the  preceding, 
though  common  in  the  Aramaic,  is  derived  from  a 
root  ‘ to  pasture.’ 

“3.  Chayyah  ( fer a,  animantia,  animal',  ‘beast, 
wild  beast’).  This  word,  which  is  the  feminine  of 
the  adjective  ‘ living,’  is  used  to  denote  any  animal. 
It  is,  however,  very  frequently  used  specially  of 
‘ wild  beast,’  when  the  meaning  is  often  more  fully 
expressed  by  the  addition  of  the  word  ( hassddeh ) 
(wild  beast)  of  the  field.  * * * Similar  is  the 

use  of  the  Chaldee  (chayyah). 

“ 1.  The  rendering  of  four  Hebrew  words  in  the 
A.  V.,  and  of  three  in  the  R.  V.  (chayyah,  fera,  ani- 
mal, animantium;  Arab,  hayah)  signifies  simply  ‘ a 
living  thing  ’ but  is  generally  applied  to  wild  ani- 
mals. * * * ‘In  most  passages,  however,  whether 
with  or  without  the  words  ‘ of  the  field,’  it  is  used 
for  wild  animals  generally,  frequently  contrasted 
with  birds. 

“ 2.  (Ziz,  * * fera,  ferus)  occurs  twice — viz. 

Ps.  i,  11;  Levt.  xxx,  13 — and  is  rendered  by  the  A. 
V.  ‘ wild  beast.’  The  word  is  from  the  unused  root 
zooz,  ‘ to  move  oneself,’  and  is  a common  noun  sig- 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


247 


nifying  ‘ that  which  moves,’  having  no  reference  to 
any  special  animal;  the  word  sadeh,  ‘of  the  field’ 
being  in  each  instance  coupled  with  it. 

“3.  ( Tziyyim , * * bestia,  dsemonia,  dracones) , 

i.  e.  ‘ inhabitant  of  the  desert  ’ * * * tziyyah,  ‘ a 

desert’  or  a ‘drought;  ’ and  frequently  of  man  (as 
in  Ps.  lxx,  14),  but  in  three  passages — Is.  xiii,  21; 
xxxiv,  14;  Jer.  i,  39 — applies  to  some  wild  animal, 
and  translated  in  the  A.  V.  and  R.  V.  ‘ wild  beast  of 
the  desert.’  As  in  each  of  the  three  passages  it  is 
coupled  with  iyyim,  also  distinguishes  some  specific 
creature.  But  as  to  the  meaning,  ancient  versions 
and  critics  are  alike  in  uncertainty,  scarcely  any  two 
agreeing.  Bachaot  ( Hieroz  ii,  206)  argues  strenu- 
ously in  favor  of  the  wild  cat,  referring  to  the  Arabic 
not  very  dissimilar  name  tzaiwa;  and  also  suggest- 
ing that  there  is  reference  to  the  cry  of  the  wild  cat, 
along  with  the  howling  of  the  jackal.  But  the 
meaning  is  not  very  cogent.  * * * Others  have 

suggested  the  hyena,  but  this  seems  to  be  indi- 
cated by  another  word — tzebua  (Jer.  xii,  9) . The 
Chaldee  has  apes  (cercopithecus)  ,*  the  Targum 
semise,  and  others  bubo,  ‘the  great  owl,’  but  most 
have  left  it  general;  and  Gesenius  ( sub  voce ) adopts 
this  view,  and  here  we  may  be  content  to  leave  it.” 
(. Dictionary  of  the  Bible , Yol.  I,  p.  383) . 

[*Note.  Sir  William  Smith’s  selection  of  Cercopithecus  as  the 
“ beast  of  the  field  ” was  wholly  gratuitous.  He  might  with  just  the 
same  propriety  have  selected  any  other  ape  from  the  Lemur  to  the  Go- 
rilla. Cercopithecus  is  a tailed  ape  of  Africa;  it  is  one  which  we 
would  never  associate  in  our  mind  with  the  field;  it  is  unfit  for  domestic 
purposes,  while  as  has  been  shown,  the  Biblical  beast  of  the  field  was 
designed  for  a servant;  again,  the  beast  of  the  field  is  a man-eater , hut 
no  such  charge  can  he  brought  against  Cercopithecus.'] 


248 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


From  the  above  quotations,  it  must  be  plain 
to  our  readers  that  we  have  sustained  by  proof  our 
contention  that  the  Jew  has  long  since  practically 
lost  the  language  of  his  ancestors  of  thirty  or  more 
centuries  ago;  that  the  modern  world  possesses  a 
mere  fragment  of  the  old  Hebrew  language  which 
died  and  was  superseded  in  Palestine  by  the  Ara- 
maic, ages  ago.  This  is  clearly  shown  by  the  fact  that 
modern  theologians,  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  are  utter- 
ly unable  to  indentify  many  animals  by  their  He- 
brew name;  prominent  among  these  is  that  great 
man-eating  animal  which  figure  so  prominently  as 
the  beast  of  the  field. 

In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  shown  that 
the  beast  of  the  field  possesses  certain  peculiar 
characteristics  which  pre-eminently  distinguish  him 
from  all  other  animals;  and  that  God  in  His  wisdom, 
His  mercy,  His  love,  has  made  these  characteristics 
of  this  beast,  a matter  of  scriptural  record;  we  have 
also  shown  that  these  characteristics  pre-emiently 
fit  this  animal  for  the  position  of  servant  which 
God  designed  him  to  occupy;  and  that  the  ancients 
owned  and  used  him  as  a servant;  and  that  God  took 
from  certain  nations  their  “beasts  of  the  field,”  and 
gave  them  to  Nebuchadnezzar  to  serve  him. 

When  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  scriptural  record 
of  this  beast  and  his  characteristics,  the  guesses  of 
the  would-be  Hebrew  scholars  and  theologians  of 
modern  times  as  to  the  identity  of  this  animal,  are 
absolutely  ridiculous;  some  guess  that  the  wild  cat 
was  the  animal  referred  to;  others  that  it  was  the  hy- 
ena, others,  the  owl,  etc.;  while  some  guess  that  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


249 


“ beast  of  the  field  ” is  a general  term.  With  the  latter 
view  Sir  William  Smith  appears  to  coincide,  and  he 
says,  “ here  we  may  be  content  to  leave  it.” 

If  these  distinguished  gentlemen  had  noted 
God’s  gift  of  the  “ beast  of  the  field  ” to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, they  must  have  seen  that  God  designed  to 
punish  the  people  from  whom  He  took  these  ani- 
mals, and  that  in  bestowing  them  upon  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, God  proposed  to  correspondingly  benefit 
him.  It  is  evident  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of 
the  great  Babylonian  monarch  to  engage  in  the  me- 
nagerie business,  or  to  start  out  on  the  road  with  a 
traveling  circus,  or  something  of  that  kind.  Hence, 
he  would  not  desire  to  be  burthened  with  all  the 
hyenas,  wild  cats,  owls,  and  such  like  to  be  found  in 
the  various  countries  which  he  invaded  and  con- 
quered. How  could  these  animals  possibly  “ serve 
him?  ” Their  whole  idea  of  the  “ beasts  of  the  field  ” 
is  perfectly  absurd,  and  could  only  have  originated 
in  the  grossest  ignorance  of  the  plain  teaching  of  the 
Bible. 

The  embarassment  under  which  these  gentle- 
men labored  in  vain,  to  identify  the  “ beast  of  the 
field,”  is  due  solely  to  their  failure  to  realize  that 
the  distinction  between  the  “ cattle  ” and  the 
“ beasts  ” is  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  “ cattle  ” are 
quadrupeds,  and  that  the  “ beasts  ” are  biped-apes. 
Had  they  known  this,  they  would  have  seen  that 
the  “ beast  of  the  field”  is  an  ape,  and  that  in  the 
creation,  he  was  made  after  his  “kind,”  the  “ beast,” 
— ape  or  biped  “ kind.” 

For  nearly  twenty  centuries,  the  Jews  as  a peo- 


250 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


pie,  occupied  a peculiar  position  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth,  by  their  adherence  to  monotheism  and 
the  School  of  Divine  Creation,  as  taught  in  the  Bi- 
ble. But  their  history  shows  that  they  would  occa- 
sionally yield  to  the  demoralizing  influences  by 
which  they  were  surrounded,  and  renounce  mono- 
theism, and  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Creation,  and 
descend  to  atheism  as  expressed  in  the  theory  of 
evolution,  and  would  even  embrace  idolatry.  Evo- 
lution naturally  tends  to  greatly  modify  and  lessen, 
if  it  does  not  wholly  obliterate  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  quadruped  and  the  biped,  by  declaring  the 
latter  to  be  merely  a development  of  the  former. 
Hence,  under  the  influence  of  evolution  it  would  be 
easy  for  a people  to  lose  sight  of  the  distinction 
which  the  Bible  makes  between  the  “ cattle  ” or 
quadrupeds,  and  the  apes  or  bipeds. 

When  the  Israelites  would  renounce  monothe- 
ism and  accept  the  theory  of  evolution,  God  would 
visit  upon  them  the  most  terrible  punishments;  the 
Babylonian  captivity  was  one  of  these;  under  the 
pressure  of  these  punishments,  they  would  finally 
renounce  atheism  and  idolatory,  and  return  to  mo- 
notheism, as  they  did  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  and  they 
would  be  restored  to  Divine  favor.  It  is  evident  that 
at  some  period  intervening  between  the  days  of  Ezra 
and  the  birth  of  Christ,  they  again  renounced  mono- 
theism and  accepted  the  theory  of  evolution;  and 
during  this  period,  under  the  demoralizing  influence 
of  evolution,  they  finally  lost  all  knowledge  of  the 
fact  that  the  ape  is  a biped.  Ezra  was  called  “a 
second  Moses  and  the  restorer  of  the  law.  He  was  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


251 


first  ‘ scribe  ’ and  raised  the  scribe  above  the  priest. 
He  collected  and  arranged  the  ancient  writings,  and 
so  laid  the  foundation  of  the  canon.”  (Schaff.)  It 
was  Ezra  who  compelled  the  Jews  to  put  away  their 
“ strange  wives,”  and  the  “ children  ” they  had  be- 
gotten by  them.  As  the  “ restorer  of  the  law  ” he 
taught  Israel  the  true  distinction  between  the  “ cat- 
tle ” and  the  “ beast,”  as  well  as  the  distinction  be- 
tween man  and  the  animals;  with  this  knowledge 
regained  they  were  enabled  to  identify  the  “ beast 
of  the  field.”  Their  acceptance  of  the  teachings 
of  Ezra,  restored  them  to  Divine  favor.  Hence, 
in  these  respects  their  condition  was  much  the 
same  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Moses.  This  ena- 
bles us  to  understand  that  it  was  after  the  days  of 
Ezra,  and  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  that  the  Jew 
lost  his  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  ape  is  a 
biped. 

In  the  meantime  the  Septuagint,  or  Greek  trans- 
lation of  the  scriptures,  was  written;  the  Septuagint 
was  completed  about  the  year  285  B.  C. 

Before  the  birth  of  the  Saviour  they  again  re- 
turned to  monotheism;  they  accepted  the  Sepmagint, 
and  adhered  to  it  until  after  the  crucifixion  of  the 
Saviour,  when  they  abandoned  it  and  turned  to  the 
Hebrew  scriptures  as  they  have  them  to-day.  When 
the  Jews  returned  to  monotheism,  and  accepted  the 
Septuagint,  they  observed  that  it  made  a distinction 
between  the  “cattle”  and  the  “beasts;”  but  like  our 
English  version  it  did  not  state  in  just  so  many  words 
that  the  “ cattle  ” were  quadrupeds  and  that  the 
“beasts”  were  bipeds — apes;  and  having  lost  all 


252 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


knowledge  that  the  ape  is  a biped,  and  of  the  true 
distinction  between  the  “ cattle  ” and  the  “ beasts,” 
the  Jews  were  misled  into  believing  that  the  “ cattle  ” 
were  herbivorous  quadrupeds,  and  that  the  “ beasts  ” 
were  carnivorous  quadrupeds;  and  this  false  perni- 
cious theory  has  survived  to  our  day,  and  is  now 
universally  taught  by  the  Jewish,  Protestant  and 
Catholic  clergy.  The  Saviour  and  His  disciples  en- 
deavored to  eradicate  from  the  minds  of  men  all 
false  theories  as  to  the  animals,  and  man’s  relation 
to  them,  and  restore  the  teachings  of  the  Mosaic 
Record;  but  their  efforts  were  only  partially  success- 
ful, especially  among  the  Jews,  and  the  good  results 
which  they  anticipated,  were  short  lived. 

From  that  remote  period  in  which  the  Jew  lost 
his  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  ape  is  a biped,  the 
world  was  in  ignorance  upon  this  important  subject, 
with  the  exception  of  a century  or  two  after  the  birth 
of  Christ,  until  a few  decades  ago,  Professor  Huxley 
discovered  through  his  researches  in  comparative 
anatomy  that  the  ape  is  a biped;  but  even  when  this 
fact  was  published,  the  modern  clergy  failed  to  rec- 
ognize its  significance;  and  Huxley’s  great  discovery, 
which  is  worth  more  to  the  world  than  the  discovery 
of  America,  or  a thousand  planets  like  Uranus,  re- 
ceived no  notice  at  the  hands  of  modern  theologians. 

When  the  characteristics  of  the  “ beast  of  the 
field,”  as  above  shown,  are  viewed  in  the  light  of 
Prof.  Huxley’s  discovery,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this 
creature  is  an  ape;  and  from  our  quotation  from 
Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  it  is  plain  that  in 
the  old  Hebrew  scriptures  the  Hebrew  term,  trans- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


253 


lated  “beast  of  the  field”  in  our  English  version  of 
the  Bible,  meant  ape;  and  that  the  ancient  Hebrews 
recognized  the  “beast  of  the  field”  as  an  ape.  All 
doubt  upon  this  most  important  subject  is  removed 
by  the  fact  that,  when  in  very  ancient  times  the 
translating  and  paraphrasing  of  the  old  Hebrew 
scriptures  into  the  Targum  occurred,  the  term 
“beast  of  the  field”  was  translated  simiac,  which 
means  ape;  while  in  the  Chaldee  translation  of  the 
old  Hebrew  scriptures,  our  term  “beast  of  the  field” 
was  translated  ape. 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  the  translating  and 
paraphrasing  of  the  old  Hebrew  scriptures  into  the 
Aramaic  was  not  done  by  strangers  for  strangers; 
nor  by  the  Jews  for  strangers;  but  was  done  by  the 
most  competent  Jews  for  the  Jews.  When  this 
translation  was  made  the  Aramaic  language  had 
superseded  the  Hebrew  in  Palestine,  and  was  the 
popular  language  of  the  masses;  but  at  the  same 
time  there  were  perhaps  thousands  of  old  and 
learned  Jews  besides  the  priesthood,  who  were  fa- 
miliar with  the  Hebrew  language,  and  being  vitally 
interested  in  the  translating  and  paraphrasing  of  the 
scriptures,  they  would  readily  detect  any  errors  in 
the  work,  and  see  to  it  that  they  were  corrected;  the 
same  is  true  of  the  Chaldee  translation  of  the  script- 
ures. But  such  was  not  the  case  with  the  Septua- 
gint  or  Greek  version  of  the  Bible.  When  the  Sep- 
tuagint  was  translated,  the  Hebrew  had  been  a dead 
language  for  centuries. 

We  have  now  shown  (1),  by  comparative  anat- 
omy that  the  whole  ape  family  are  bipeds.  (2)  That 


254 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  distinction  between  the  “cattle  ” and  the  “ beasts” 
is  based  upon  the  differences  in  their  physical  and 
mental  organisms;  that  the  “cattle”  are  quadrupeds , 
and  the  “beasts”  are  bipeds — apes.  (3)  That  the 
Hebrew  term,  translated  “beast  of  the  field”  in  the 
English  version  of  the  Bible,  meant  ape  in  the  old 
Hebrew  scriptures,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
most  ancient  translation  of  the  Hebrew  this  term  is 
translated  ape.  In  the  following  chapter  we  shall 
appeal  to  the  science  of  comparative  anatomy  to  aid 
us  in  identifying  this  great  animal  which  figures  so 
prominently  throughout  the  scriptures. 


CHAPTER  X. 


The  “ Beast  of  the  Field  ” Identified  With  the 
Aid  of  Comparative  Anatomy. 

The  white  is  the  highest,  and  the  negro  the 
lowest,  of  the  so-called  “five  races  of  men;”  and 
they  present  the  most  striking  contrast  to  each  other 
in  their  physical  and  mental  characters,  their  modes 
of  life,  habits,  customs,  manners,  language,  gestures, 
etc.  No  cross  between  the  negro  and  any  of  the  so- 
called  brown,  red,  and  yellow  races,  will  produce  the 
pure  white.  No  cross  between  the  white  and  any  of 
the  so-called  brown,  red,  and  yellow  races,  will  pro- 
duce the  genuine  negro.  This  indicates  that  the 
white  and  the  negro  are  the  originals  whom  God 
made.  This  being  true,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  as- 
certain the  relations  which  God  established  between 
them. 

In  discussing  the  characteristics  of  the  white 
(the  so-called  “Caucasian  race”),  Theodore  Parker 
says:  “The  Caucasian  differs  from  all  other  races; 

he  is  humane,  he  is  civilized,  and  progresses.  He 
conquers  with  his  head  as  well  as  with  his  hand.  It 
is  intellect,  after  all,  that  conquers,  not  the  strength  of 
man’s  arm.  The  Caucasian  has  been  often  the  master 
of  the  other  races — never  their  slave.  He  has  car- 
ried his  religion  to  the  other  races,  but  never  taken 
theirs.  All  the  great  limited  forms  of  monarchy  are 
Caucasian.  Republics  are  Caucasian.  All  the  great 

255 


256 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


sciences  are  of  Caucasian  origin;  all  inventions  are 
Caucasian;  literature  and  romance  come  from  the 
same  stock;  all  the  great  poets  are  of  Caucasian 
origin.  No  other  race  can  bring  up  to  memory  such 
celebrated  names  as  the  Caucasian  race.” 

Mr.  Morris  says:  “ It  may  be  remarked  that  all 

the  savage  tribes  of  the  earth  belong  to  the  negro  or 
the  Mongolian  races.  * * * On  the  other  hand, 

the  Caucasian  is  pre-eminently  the  man  of  civiliza- 
tion. No  traveler  or  historian  records  a savage 
tribe  of  Caucasian  stock.”  (The  Aryan  Race.)  This 
indicates  that  between  the  white  and  the  negro,  there 
is  a deep,  wide,  impassable  gulf,  which  is  not  the  re- 
sult of  any  development  on  the  part  of  the  white, 
nor  of  retrogression  on  the  part  of  the  negro;  its 
significance  is  immeasurably  increased  by  the  fact 
that  its  existence  is  traceable  through  the  scriptures, 
the  sciences,  profane  history,  tradition,  and  monu- 
mental evidence  to  the  remotest  antiquity. 

On  one  side  of  this  great  gulf  stands  the  cul- 
tured, progressive  white,  whose  flashing  intellect, 
restless  energy,  and  indomitable  courage  discovers, 
conquors,  and  develops  continents.  On  the  oppo- 
site, and  far  distant  shore  of  this  great  gulf,  stands 
the  ignorant,  savage  negro,  whose  mental  indolence 
and  incapacity  accomplish  nothing.  History  re- 
cords no  achievements  of  his.  His  thousands  of 
years  lived  out  upon  the  earth,  are  as  barren  of  re- 
sults as  those  of  the  gorilla.  Throughout  his  whole 
existence  he  figures  only  as  a savage  or  a servant. 
No  “ woolly-haired  nation  has  ever  had  an  important 
history.”  (Haeclcel.) 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


257 


These  incontrovertible  facts  constitute  the  great- 
est problem  with  which  man  was  ever  confronted. 
This  great  problem  — the  “negro  problem” — has 
challenged  the  attention,  and  baffled  the  best  efforts 
of  the  brightest  intellects  of  the  earth.  Atheism  has 
grappled  with  this  problem  only  to  be  vanquished  by 
it.  And  in  the  hands  of  modern  religionists,  the 
mystery  which  has  so  long  enveloped  it,  grows  deeper 
and  more  appalling.  Yet  it  must  be  admitted  that 
the  facts  we  have  cited,  and  which  combine  to  form 
this  vexed  problem,  are  simply  effects , which,  like  all 
effects,  are  traceable  to  a cause.  In  our  efforts  to 
discover  this  cause,  we  feel  assured  that  our  only 
hope  of  success  lies  in  the  scriptures  and  sciences. 
Recognizing  the  Bible  as  the  highest  tribunal  — the 
court  of  last  resort — we  shall  appeal  to  it  in  this 
grave  emergency,  confident  that,  with  the  aid  of  the 
sciences,  we  shall  accomplish  the  desired  end. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  man  was  created  a single 
pair,  “in  the  image  of  God.”  And  that  the  animal 
like  the  plant  was  made  “after  his  kind.”  And  we 
feel  assured  that  after  carefully  considering  this  most 
important  subject,  even  the  most  skeptical  must 
admit  that  the  white,  with  his  exalted  physical  and 
mental  characters,  and  the  negro  with  his  degraded 
physical  and  mental  characters,  are  not  the  descend- 
ants of  one  primitive  pair.  This  conclusion  has 
long  since  been  reached  by  the  closest  observers 
and  the  most  profound  thinkers  of  the  age. 

In  discussing  this  question,  Professor  Haeckel 
says:  “ The  excellent  paleontologist,  Quenstedt,  was 
right  in  maintaining  that,  ‘if  Negroes  and  Caucas- 


258 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


sians  were  snails,  zoologists  would  universally  agree 
that  they  represented  two  very  distinct  species  which 
could  never  have  originated  from  one  pair  by  gradual 
divergence.”  ( History  of  Creation ). 

Thus,  when  viewed  from  a scriptural  standpoint, 
it  is  evident  that,  if  the  white  is  the  being  created 
“ in  the  image  of  God,”  the  negro  is  merely  an  ani- 
mal and  was  made  “ after  his  kind.”  And  a glance 
at  the  negro  indicates  the  kind ; his  very  appearance 
suggests  the  ape.  Mr.  Darwin  says,  “ The  resem- 
blance to  a negro  in  miniature  of  Pethecia  satanus, 
with  his  jet  black  skin,  his  white  rolling  eyeballs 
and  his  hair  parted  on  the  top  of  the  head,  is  almost 
ludicrous.” 

Prof.  Wyman  says:  “It  cannot  be  denied,  how- 
ever wide  the  separation,  that  the  negro  and  orang 
do  afford  the  points  where  man  and  brute,  when  the 
totality  of  their  organization  is  considered,  most 
nearly  approach  each  other.”  Prof.  Haeckel  quotes 
a great  English  traveler  who  lived  a considerable 
time  on  the  west  coast  of  Africa,  who  says:  “I  con- 
sider the  negro  as  a lower  species  of  man,  and  canH- 
not  make  up  my  mind  to  look  upon  him  as  a man 
and  a brother,  for  the  gorilla  would  then  also  have 
to  be  admitted  into  the  family.” 

Prof.  Winchel  says:  “The  inferiority  of  the 
negro  is  fundamentally  structural.  I have  enum- 
erated the  points  in  his  anatomy  in  which  he  di- 
verges from  the  white  race,  and  have  indicated  that, 
in  all  these  particulars,  he  approximates  the  or- 
ganisms below.  * * * It  follows  that  what  the 

negro  is  structurally,  at  the  present  time,  is  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


259  ■ 


best  he  has  ever  been.  It  follows  that  he  has  not 
descended  from  Adam.”  (Pre-adamites) . It  also 
follows  that  if  the  negro  “has  not  descended  from 
Adam,”  he  does  not  belong  to  the  flesh  of  man,  and 


Fig.  4.  FEMALE  HOTTENTOT.  Fig.  5.  FEMALE  GORILLA. 


— From  Winch  ell,  Preadimites. 

being  a land  animal,  he  necessarily  belongs  to  the 
flesh  of  beasts. 

Mr.  Morris  says:  “The  negro  is  normally  peace- 
ful and  submissive.  His  lack  of  enterprise  must  keep 
him  so.  Education  with  him  soon  reaches  its  limit. 
It  is  capable  of  increasing  the  perceptive,  but  not  of 
strongly  awakening  the  reflective,  faculties.  The 
negro  will  remain  the  worker.  * * * Of  the 

two  great  modern  divisions  of  civilized  mankind, 
the  workers  and  the  thinkers,  the  negro  -belongs  by 
nature  to  the  former  class.”  ( The  Aryan  Race,  pp. 
312,313). 

The  observations  of  the  high  authorities  above 
quoted  are  fully  sustained  by  comparative  anatomy. 


260 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


As  above  shown,  the  white  and  the  negro  are  the 
originals  whom  God  made ; when  compared  with  the 
other  so-called  “ races  of  men,”  or  with  each  other, 
one  of  the  most  peculiar  physical  characteristics  of 
each  is  presented  by  their  complexions;  the  one 
being  white  and  the  other  black.  It  is  admitted  that 
white  is  not  a color,  and  that  black  is  not  a color; 
yet  it  is  significant  that  the  white,  colorless  complex- 
ion of  the  white  is  in  absolute  contrast  to  the  black, 
colorless  complexion  of  the  negro. 

The  theory  was  formally  entertained,  and  is 
still  adhered  to  by  many,  that  the  dark  complexion 
of  the  negro,  and  that  of  the  other  so-called  “lower 
races,”  is  the  result  of  climatic  influence.  But  scien- 
tific investigation  has  long  since  disproven  this 
absurd  theory. 

In  his  discussion  of  this  subject,  Prof.  Winchell 
says: 

“ The  yellow-tawny  Hottentots  live  side  by  side 
with  the  black  Kaffirs.  The  ancient  Indians  of 
California,  in  the  latitude  of  forty-two  degrees,  were 
as  black  as  the  negroes  of  Guinea,  while  in  Mexico 
were  tribes  of  an  olive  or  reddish  complexion,  rela- 
tively light.  So  in  Africa,  the  darkest  negroes  are 
at  12  or  15  degrees  north  latitude;  while  their  color 
becomes  lighter  the  nearer  they  approach  the  equa- 
tor. ‘ The  Yoloffs,’  says  Goldbury,  ‘ are  a proof  that 
the  black  color  does  not  depend  entirely  on  solar 
heat,  nor  on  the  fact  that  they  are  more  exposed  to 
a vertical  sun,  but  arises  from  other  causes;  for  the 
further  we  go  from  the  influence  of  its  rays,  the 
more  the  black  color  is  increased  in  intensity.’  So 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


261 


we  may  contrast  the  dark-skinned  Eskimo  with  the 
fair  Kelts  of  temperate  Europe.  If  it  be  thought 
that  extreme  cold  exerts  upon  color  an  influence 
similar  to  that  of  extreme  heat,  we  may  compare  the 
dark  Eskimos  with  the  fair  Finns  of  similar  lati- 
tudes. Among  the  black  races  of  tropical  regions 
we  find,  generally,  some  light-colored  tribes  inter- 
spersed. These  sometimes  have  light  hair  and  blue 
eyes.  This  is  the  case  with  the  Tuareg  of  the  Sa- 
hara, the  Affghans  of  India,  and  the  aborigines  of 
the  Orinoco  and  the  Amazons.  The  Abyssinians  of 
the  plains  are  lighter  colored  than  those  of  the 
heights;  and  upon  the  low  plains  of  Peru,  the  Anti- 
sians  are  of  fairer  complexion  than  the  Aymaras  and 
Qeuichuas  of  the  high  table-lands.  Humboldt  says: 
‘ The  Indians  of  the  torrid  zone,  who  inhabit  the 
most  elevated  of  the  Cordillera  of  the  Andes,  and 
those  who  are  engaged  in  fishing  at  the  45th  degree 
of  south  latitude,  in  the  islands  of  the  Chonos 
Archipelago,  have  the  same  copper  color  as  those 
who,  under  a scorching  climate,  cultivate  the  banana 
in  the  deepest  and  narrowest  valleys  of  the  equinoc- 
tial region.’”  {Ibid,  pp.  185,  186).  Thus  it  is  shown 
that  neither  altitude  nor  latitude  produces  any 
marked  change  in  the  complexion. 

In  explaining  the  true  cause  of  the  differences 
in  complexion,  observable  among  the  so-called 
“races  of  men,”  Topinard  says: 

“The  color  of  the  skin,  hair,  and  eyes,  is  the  re- 
sult of  a general  phenomenon  in  the  organism, 
namely,  the  production  and  distribution  of  the  color- 
ing matter.  The  skin  of  the  Scandinavian  is  white, 


262 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EVE. 


almost  without  color,  or  rather  rosy  and  florid,  owing 
to  the  transparency  of  the  epidermis  allowing  the  red 
coloring  matter  of  the  blood  to  be  seen  circulating 
through  the  capillaries.  * * * The  skin  of  the 

negro  of  Guinea,  and  especially  of  Yoloff,  the  dark- 
est of  all,  is,  on  the  contrary,  jet  black,  which  is 
caused  by  the  presence  in  the  minute  cellules  on 
the  deep  surface  of  the  epidermis  of  black  granules, 
known  as  pigment.  The  black  layer  thus  formed  by 
these  cellules,  which  used  to  be  called  rete  mucosum 
of  Malpighi,  remains  adherent  sometimes  to  the 
dermis  and  sometimes  to  the  epidermis  on  removing 
the  latter,  after  previously  submitting  the  skin  to 
maceration.  This  pigment  is  found  in  all  races, 
whether  black,  yellow,  or  white,  but  in  very  differ- 
ent quantity;  hence,  their  various  tones  of  color, 
from  the  lightest  to  the  darkest  whites,  who  readily 
become  brown  on  exposure  to  light,  are  undoubtedly 
provided  with  it.  It  is  always  more  abundant  in 
the  scrotum  and  round  the  nipple.  It  is  very  visible 
on  the  mucous  membrane  of  negroes,  which  are  fre- 
quently surrounded  by  masses  of  it,  notably  on  the 
vault  of  the  palate,  the  gums,  and  the  conjunctiva, 
which  we  have  also  met  with  in  young  orangs.” 
(Anthropology , pp.  342,  343). 

Quatrefages,  in  discussing  this  question,  says: 
“ With  all  anthropologists,  I recognize  the  high  value 
of  the  color  of  the  skin  as  a character.  * * * ‘ We 
know  that  it  does  not  result  from  the  existence  or 
disappearance  of  special  layers.  Black  or  white,  the 
skin  always  comprises  a white  dermis,  penetrated  by 
many  capillaries,  and  epidermis,  more  or  less  trans- 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


263 


parent  and  colorless.  Between  the  two  is  placed  the 
mucous  layer,  of  which  the  pigment  alone  in  reality 
varies  in  quantity  and  in  color  according  to  the  race. 
All  the  colors  presented  by  the  human  skin  have 
two  common  elements,  the  white  of  the  dermis  and 
the  red  of  the  blood.  Moreover,  each  has  its  own 
proper  element,  resulting  from  the  colorings  of  the 
pigment.  The  rays  reflected  from  these  different 
tissues  combine  into  a resultant  which  produces  the 
different  tints  and  traverses  the  epidermis.  The  lat- 
ter plays  the  part  of  roughened  glass.  The  more 
delicate  and  the  finer  it  is,  the  more  perceptible  is 
the  color  of  the  subjacent  parts.  * * * From 

the  preceding,  we  can  also  understand  why  the  white 
alone  can  be  said  to  turn  pale  or  to  blush.  The 
reason  is,  that  in  him  the  pigment  allows  the  slight- 
est differences  in  the  afflux  of  the  blood  to  the  der- 
mis to  be  perceived.  With  the  negro,  as  with  us, 
the  blood  has  its  share  in  the  coloring,  the  tint  of 
which  it  deepens  or  modifies.  When  the  blood  is 
wanting,  the  negro  turns  grey  from  the  blending  of 
the  white  of  the  dermis  with  the  black  of  the  pig- 
ment.” ( The  Human  Species,  pp.  356,  357). 

It  is  thus  shown  by  the  highest  scientific  authori- 
ties, that  the  black,  colorless  complexion  of  the  negro, 
is  not  due  to  climatic  influences;  but  results  solely 
from  the  black  pigment  intervening  between  the 
dermis  and  the  epidermis.  Like  every  other  part  of 
the  organism,  this  pigment  is  liable  to  disease.  One 
of  the  diseases  to  which  the  pigment  is  subject,  is 
known  as  albinism.  The  victims  of  this  disease  are 
called  albinos.  Dr.  Topenard,  in  discussing  albinism 


264 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


and  albinos,  says:  “ Albinos  are  individuals  in  whom 
the  pigmentary  matter  is  so  far  deficient  that  the 
skin  and  hair  are  colorless,  the  iris  is  transparent, 
and  the  choroid  coat  destitute  of  the  dark  pigment 
for  the  absorption  of  redundant  rays  of  light.  In 
consequence  of  this,  they  are  unable  to  bear  sun- 
light, and  see  better  at  night  than  during  the  day. 
Their  eyeballs  are  affected  with  a perpetual  oscillating 
movement,  their  skin  and  hair  are  colorless,  or  of  a 
dull  white,  the  eyes  reddish,  the  transparency  of  the 
tissues  showing  the  blood  circulating  through  the 
capillaries.  They  are  often  indolent,  and  without 
muscular  vigor.  There  are  partial  albinos,  in  whom 
the  above  symptoms  are  observed,  but  in  a less 
degree.”  (. Anthropology , p.  161). 

The  white  epidermis  of  the  white  is  relatively 
thin,  and  emits  a slight  odor  which  is  not  offensive. 
In  strong  contrast  to  this,  the  negro  has  a “thick 
epidermis,  cool,  soft  and  velvety  to  the  touch,  mostly 
hairless,  and  emitting  a peculiar  rancid  odor,  com- 
pared by  Pruner  Bey  to  that  of  the  buck  goat.” 
(Prof.  Keane  quoted  in  Anthropology  for  the  People , 
p.  20).  Topenard,  referring  to  the  repulsive  order 
of  the  negro,  says:  “The  characteristic  effluvium 
from  the  hold  of  a slave-ship  can  never  be  got  rid 
of.”  (Ibid). 

“There  seems  to  be  a difference  between  the 
blood  of  the  white  man  and  that  of  the  negro,  too 
subtle  to  be  detected  by  microscopic  observation, 
but  proved  by  experimental  test.  The  skin  of  the 
white  man  inserted  in  the  flesh  of  the  negro  becomes 
black,  and  the  skin  of  the  negro  grafted  on  the  white 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


265 


man  turns  white.  Nothing  but  the  blood  could  pro- 
duce this  change.”  ( Anthropology  for  the  People , 
P-  21). 

The  long,  fine,  silken  hair  of  the  white  is  in 
absolute  contrast  to  the  short,  coarse,  woolly  hair  of 
the  negro.  Each  individual  hair  of  the  white  is 
cylindrical.  Hence,  its  section  is  circular.  In  con- 
trast to  this,  each  individual  hair  of  the  negro  “ is 
flattened  like  a tape.”  Hence,  “ its  section  is  oval.” 
(Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  Vol.  ii.,  pp.  414,  415). 
The  hair  of  the  white  is  inserted  obliquely  into  the 
scalp;  in  contrast  to  this,  the  hair  of  the  negro  “is 
inserted  vertically  into  the  scalp.”  (Winchell). 

Prof.  Winchell  says:  “The  condition  of  the  hair 
is  found  to  sustain  relations  to  climate  no  more  exact 
than  the  complexion.  The  Tasmanians,  in  latitude 
forty-five  degrees,  had  hair  as  woody  as  that  of  the 
negros  under  the  equator.  On  the  contrary,  smooth 
hair  is  found  extensively  in  tropical  latitudes,  as 
among  the  Australians,  the  Blacks  of  the  Deccan 
(India) , and  the  Himyarites  of  the  Yeman,  in  Ara- 
bia. Similar  absence  of  correlation  between  stature 
and  environment  has  been  ascertained.”  ( Preadi - 

mites,  pp.  186,  187). 

Dr.  Topenard  says:  “No  explanation  can  be 

given  as  to  the  varieties  of  the  hair  in  its  fundamen- 
tal types.  For  example,  the  straight  and  the  round, 
the  woody  and  the  flat  hair,  as  seen  under  the 
microscope.  In  this  lies  the  most  serious  objection 
to  the  theory  of  the  derivation  of  characters  from 
one  another.  In  the  present  state  of  science  we 


266 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EVE. 


have  no  explanation  to  give  on  the  subject.”  ( An- 
thropology) . 

The  statements  of  this  distinguished  anthropolo- 
gist deserves*  our  most  earnest  consideration.  He 
frankly  admits  that  science  can  give  no  explanation 
of  why  the  hair  of  the  white  is  long,  fine,  and  round, 
and  is  inserted  obliquely  into  the  scalp;  while  the 
hair  of  the  negro  is  short,  coarse,  and  flat,  and  is  in- 
serted vertically  into  the  scalp.  He  also  admits  that 
in  these  striking  contrasts  “lies  the’most  serious  ob- 
jection to  the  theory  of  the  derivation  of  characters 
from  one  another;”  or,  in  other  words,  in  these  op- 
posing characters  “lies  the  most  serious  objection  to 
the  theory  ” that  either  the  white  or  the  negro  de- 
veloped the  one  from  the  other.  It  is  also  plain  that 
in  these  opposing  characters  presented  by  the  hair 
of  whites  and  negroes  “lies  the  most  serious  objec- 
tion” to  the  modern  church  theory  that  the  whites 
and  the  negroes  are  the  progny  of  one  primitive  pair. 

“Dr.  Brown  of  Philadelphia,  the  distinguished 
microscopist,  has  thoroughly  investigated  the  hair  of 
''  the  human  races,  and  has  shown  conclusively  that 
the  pile  of  the  negro  is  really  wool.  He  is  the  best 
authority  on  this  point,  and  is,  on  that  account, 
quoted  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britanica.  The  following 
is  a summary  of  his  conclusions:  * * ‘ The  hair  of 
the  white  man  has,  besides  its  cortex  and  intermedi- 
ate fibres,  a central  canal,  which  contains  the  color- 
ing matter  when  present.  The  pile  of  the  negro  has 
no  central  canal,  and  the  coloring  matter  is  diffused, 
when  present,  either  throughout  the  cortex  or  the 
; intermediate  fibres.  Hair,  according  to  these  obser- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


267 


vations,  is  more  complex  in  its  structure  than  wool. 
In  hair,  the  enveloping  scales  are  comparatively  few, 
writh  smooth  surfaces,  rounded  at  their  points,  and 
closely  embracing  the  shaft.  In  wool,  they  are  nu- 
merous, rough,  sharp-pointed,  and  project  from  the 
shaft.  Hence , the  hair  of  the  white  man  will  not  feltr, 
that  of  the  negro  will.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  it 
comes  nearer  to  true  wool.”  ( Anthropology  for  the 
People , pp.  104,  105). 

Commenting  on  the  wool  of  the  negro,  the  author 
of  Anthropology  for  the  People , says:  “It  is  impos- 

sible to  conceive  any  natural  cause  that  could  have 
changed  the  hair  of  the  white  man  into  the  wool  of 
the  negro.  If  the  negro  has  sunk  from  the  Adamic 
race  to  what  he  now  is,  what  caused  the  central  canal 
in  his  pile  to  disappear,  and  by  what  natural  cause 
could  it  be  restored?  Can  the  evolutionist  explain 
it  on  his  theory?  Can  the  monogist  explain  it  on 
his?” 

In  the  white,  the  pilous  system  is  highly  devel- 
oped; this  is  in  striking  contrast  to  that  of  the  negro, 
which  is  notably  deficient.  Of  the  negro,  Topenard 
says:  “ The  beard  is  scant,  and  developed  late.  The 
body  is  destitute  of  hair,  except  on  the  pubis  and 
armpits.”  (Ibid,  p.  488).  Winchell  says:  “As  to 

the  pilous  system  it  is  deficient  in  the  negro.  The 
hairs  of  the  head  are  black  and  crispy,  with  a trans- 
verse section,  and  are  inserted  vertically  in  the  scalp. 
The  skin  is  black,  velvety,  and  comparatively  cool.” 
(Ibid,  p.  174) . 

The  comparatively  short,  broad  skull  of  the  white 
is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  long,  narrow  skull  of 


268 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  negro.  The  length  ancl  narrowness  of  the  negro 
skull  is  a character  of  the  ape.  Prof.  Winchell  says: 
“ A certain  relative  width  of  skull  appears  to  be  con- 
nected with  energy,  force  and  executive  ability.” 
This  explains  the  negro’s  lack  of  executive  ability — 
God  made  him  so.  The  significance  of  this  is  easily 
seen  when  we  pause  to  reflect  that  the  task  to 
which  man  was  assigned  in  the  creation  required  the 
highest  executive  ability.  Winchell,  quoting  from 
Broca,  says:  “(1)  The  face  of  the  negro  occupies  the 
greater  portion  of  the  total  length  of  the  head.  (2) 
His  anterior  cranium  is  less  developed  than  his  pos- 
terior, relatively  to  that  of  the  white.  (3)  His  occip- 
ital foramen  is  situated  more  backward  in  relation  to 
the  total  projection  of  the  head,  but  more  forward  in 
relation  to  the  cranium  only.  In  other  words,  the 
negro  has  the  cerebral  cranium  less  developed  than 
the  anterior.”  ( Preadimites , pp.  169,  170). 

“ In  the  negro  skull  the  sphenoid  does  not,  gen- 
erally, reach  the  parietals,  the  coronal  suture  joining 
the  margin  of  the  temporals.  The  skull  is  very  thick 
and  solid,  and  is  often  used  for  butting,  as  is  the 
custom  of  rams.  It  is  flattened  on  the  top,  and  well 
adapted  for  carrying  burdens.”  (Ibid,  p.  171). 
“The  cephalic  index — among  Noachites  (whites), 
ranges  from  75  to  83  degrees;  among  negroes,  from 
71  to  76  degrees.  (Ibid,  p.  246). 

Dr.  Winchell,  in  discussing  cranial  capacity, 
says:  “Capacity  of  cranium  is  universally  recog- 

nized as  a criterion  of  psychic  power.  No  fact  is 
better  established  than  the  general  relation  of  intel- 
lect to  weight  of  brain.  Welker  has  shown  that  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


269 


brains  of  twenty-six  men  of  high  intellectual  rank 
surpassed  the  average  weight  by  fourteen  per  cent. 
Of  course  quality  of  brain  is  an  equally  important 
factor;  and  hence  not  a few  men  with  brains  even 
below  the  average  have  distinguished  themselves  for 
scholarship  and  executive  ability.  The  Noachites 
possess  a mean  capacity  of  1,500  cubic  centimeters. 
Among  negroes,  1,360  cubic  centimeters.”  (Ibid,  p. 
246) . 

“ The  average  weight  of  the  European  brain, 
males  and  females,  is  1,340  grammes;  that  of  the 
negro  is  1,178;  of  the  Hottentot,  974,  and  of  the  Aus- 
tralian, 907.  The  significance  of  these  comparisons 
appears  when  we  learn  that  Broca,  the  most  eminent 
of  French  anthropologists,  states  that,  when  the  Eu- 
ropean brain  falls  below  978  grammes  (mean  of 
males  and  females) , the  result  is  idiocy.  In  this 
opinion  Thurman  coincides.  The  color  of  the  negro 
brain  is  darker  than  that  of  the  white,  and  its  dens- 
ity and  the  texture  are  inferior.  The  convolutions 
are  fewer  and  more  simple,  and,  as  Agassiz  and 
others  long  ago  pointed  out,  approximate  those  of 
the  quadruma.”  (Ibid,  pp.  249,  251). 

The  theory  of  evolution  has  long  misled  the 
world  into  believing  that  all  bipeds  with  the  erect 
posture,  articulate  speech,  a well  formed  hand  and 
foot,  and  the  abiltity  to  make  and  handle  tools,  are 
men.  As  a result  of  this  false  teaching,  we  have  no 
estimates  of  the  average  brain  weight  of  the  adult 
Adamic  male  nor  of  the  Adamic  female.  But 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  average  brain  weight 
of  the  adult  Adamic  male  may  safely  be  placed  at 


270 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE, 


Fig.  6. 

PROFILE  VIEW  OF  THE  BRAIN  OF  THE  ORANG  OUTANG. 


Fig.  7. 

PROFILE  VIEW  OF  THE  BRAIN  OF  THE  BUSHMAN  VENUS. 


Fig.  8. 

PROFILE  VIEW  OF  BRAIN  OF  GAUSS,  THE  MATHEMATICIAN. 

— From  Winchell,  Preadimites. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


271 


not  less  than  1,500  grammes.  This  average  is  far 
below  that  of  many  individual  whites,  for  example: 

Weight  of  brain, 
grammes.  ounces. 

Cavier — 63  years  old — naturalist,  . 1829.96  64.54 
Byron — 36  years  old — poet,  . . . 1807.00  63.73 

Lejisens  Dirichlet — 50  years  old — 

mathematician,  ....  1520.00  53.61 

— ( Quatrefages , The  Human  Species,  p.  411). 

The  table  from  which  these  brain  weights  were 
taken  contains  the  brain  weights  of  several  distin- 
guished individuals  which  fall  below  the  average. 
This  indicates  that,  in  determining  the  relative  intel- 
ligence of  individuals,  there  are  other  factors  to  be 
considered  besides  the  weight  and  volume  of  the 
brain.  While  admitting  that  “ there  is  a certain  re- 
lation between  the  development  of  the  intelligence 
and  the  weight  and  volume  of  the  brain,”  Quatre- 
fages says:  “But  at  the  same  time  we  must  allow 
that  the  material  element,  that  which  is  appreciable 
to  our  senses,  is  not  the  only  one  which  we  must 
take  into  account,  for  behind  it  lies  hidden  an  un- 
known quantity,  an  X,  at  present  undetermined  and 
only  recognizable  by  its  effects.”  (Ibid,  p.  413) . 
To  demonstrate  this  truth,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
compare  the  achievements  of  the  whites  with  those 
of  the  negro  and  the  mixed-bloods. 

The  relatively  short,  narrow  jaw  of  the  whites  is 
in  striking  contrast  to  the  long,  broad  jaw  of  the  ne- 
gro. The  length  and  breadth  of  the  negro’s  jaw  is  a 
character  of  the  ape.  The  jaws  of  the  negro,  like 
those  of  the  other  apes,  “ extend  forward  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  symmetry  of  the  face,  and  backward  at 


272 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  expense  of  the  brain  cavity.”  Quatrefages  says: 
“It  is  well  known  that  in  the  negro  the  entire  face, 
and  especially  the  lower  portion,  projects  forward. 
In  the  living  subject  it  is  exaggerated  by  the  thick- 
ness of  the  lips.  But  it  is  also  apparent  in  the 
skull,  and  constitutes  one  of  its  most  striking  char- 
acters.” {Ibid,  pp.  390,  391) . 

Dr.  Winchell  says:  “The  amount  of  progna- 
thism is  another  marked  criterion  of  organic  rank. 
One  method  of  expressing  this  is  by  means  of  ‘ auri- 
cular radii,’  or  distances  from  the  opening  of  the 
ear  to  the  roots  of  the  teeth,  and  to  other  parts  of 
the  head.  Among  Europeans,  the  distance  to  the 
base  of  the  upper  incisors  is  99,  but  among  negroes 
it  averages  114.  On  the  contrary,  the  average  dis- 
tance to  the  top  of  the  head  is,  among  Europeans, 
112,  but  among  negroes,  110.  The  distance  to  the 
upper  edge  of  the  occipital  bone  is,  among  Europe- 
ans, 104,  among  negroes,  104.  These  measurements 
prove  that  the  negro  possesses  more  face,  and  parti- 
cularly of  jaws  and  less  brain  above.  Other  mea- 
surements furnish  a similar  result,  and  show  also 
that  the  development  of  the  posterior  brain,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  anterior,  is  greater  in  the  negro.  Prog- 
nathism is  likewise  expressed  by  means  of  the  ‘ facial 
angle,’  or  general  slope  of  the  face  from  the  forehead 
to  the  jaws,  when  compared  with  a horizontal  plane. 
Among  the  Noachites,  the  facial  line  is  nearest  per- 
pendicular, giving  an  angle  of  77  degrees  to  81  de- 
grees. Among  the  negroes  it  averages  only  67  de- 
grees.” {Preadimites,  p.  247). 

In  contrasting  the  negro  skull  and  face  with 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


273 


those  of  the  white,  Topinard  says:  “The  norma  ver- 
ticals is  of  an  elliptical  shape.  The  supra-iniac  por- 
tion of  the  occipital  is  frequently  projecting,  its  lat- 
eral portions  are  flat  and  vertical,  the  curved  temporal 
lines  describe  an  arc  corresponding  with  the  mass  of 
temporal  muscles,  which  are  inserted  beneath  them; 
the  temporal  shelf  itself  is  larger  than  that  of  the 
white.  The  frontal  is  articulated  frequently  with 
the  temporal;  the  greater  wings  of  the  sphenoid  are 
consequently  not  articulated  with  the  parietal.  The 
cranial  sutures  are  more  simple  than  in  the  white 
type,  and  are  obliterated  sooner.  (Gratiolet) . The 
squamo-temporal,  and  the  spheno-parietal  frequently 
form  a horizontal  straight  line.  The  forehead  is  nar- 
row at  the  base,  sometimes  receding  and  rather  low; 
sometimes  straight  and  bulging  (bombe)  at  the  sum- 
mit. The  frontal  bosses  are  often  confluent,  or  re- 
placed by  a single  and  median  protuberance.  * * * 
The  orbit  moreover  are  microsemis,  that  is  to  say, 
short  from  above  downwards.  * * * The  eye- 

balls are  close  to  the  head,  and  the  palpebral  aper- 
tures are  nevertheless  small  and  are  on  the  same 
horizontal  line.  * * * The  nose  is  developed  in 

width  at  the  expense  of  its  projection;  its  base  is 
large  and  crushed  in,  owing  to  the  softness  of  the 
cartilages,  and  spreads  out  into  two  diverging  alse, 
with  elliptical  nostrils  more  or  less  exposed.  This 
extremity  is  also  trilobed.  The  skeleton  of  the  nose 
platyrrhinian  (54.78) ; the  two  bones  proper  are  oc- 
casionally united  as  in  apes.  The  inferior  border  of 
the  aperture  is  obliterated,  or  replaced  by  a sort  of 
platform,  the  boundary  between  the  nasal  fossae  and 


274 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  sub-nasal  region  being  undefined  in  proportion 
to  the  very  slight  development  of  the  median  spine. 
* :!:  * The  prognathism,  of  the  negro  extends 

within  certain  limits  to  the  entire  face.  All  the 
parts  of  the  superior  maxilla  contribute  to  it,  and 
even  the  pterygoid  processes,  which  are  drawn  for- 
ward by  the  development  of  the  jaw;  but  it  is  only 
really  characteristic  and  considerable  in  the  sub- 
nasal  region  and  in  the  teeth.  It  frequently  exists 
also  in  the  lower  jaw,  that  is  to  say,  the  chin  recedes, 
and  the  teeth  project  obliquely  forwards.  The  teeth 
themselves  are  wider  apart  than  in  the  white  races, 
beautifully  white,  very  firm  and  sound.  Lastty,  the 
ears  are  small,  round,  their  border  not  well  curled, 
the  lobule  short  and  scarcely  detached,  and  the  audi- 
tory opening  wide.  The  neck  is  short.”  ( Anthro- 
pology, pp.  488,  489,  490) . 

“The  space  between  the  eyes  of  the  negro  is 
larger  and  flatter  than  in  the  white.”  (Topenard) . 
“ The  eye  of  the  negro  affords  a peculiarity  of  struc- 
ture strikingly  different  from  the  white  man.  It  has 
been  long  known,  and  was  described  by  Dr.  Samuel 
A.  Cartright,  of  Natchez,  Mississippi,  nearly  fifty 
years  ago,  in  simple,  non-technical  language.  He 
says:  ‘If  you  look  into  the  inner  angle  of  the  eye, 

next  to  the  nose,  and  slightly  elevate  the  eyelids, 
you  will  discover  nothing  in  the  white  man’s  eye  but 
a small  prominence,  or  glandular-like  substance,  and 
a very  small  semi-lunar  membrane.  The  promi- 
nence is  composed  of  seven  distinct  crypts,  or  sacs, 
filled  with  an  unctious  fluid,  and  has  seven  distinct 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


275 


openings,  or  orifices.  The  semi-lunar  membrane  is 
for  the  purpose  of  directing  the  tears  into  a sac, 
which  lies  behind  and  below  the  prominence.  But 
if  you  look  into  the  eye  of  the  negro,  in  the  same 
manner,  you  will  discover  that  his  eye  has  an  addi- 
tional expansion  of  the  above-mentioned  membrane, 
or,  in  other  words,  an  additional  contrivance,  con- 
sisting of  a membranous  wing  expanded  underneath 
a portion  of  the  upper  eyelid,  and  that  when  the  eye 
is  exposed  to  a bright  light,  the  membranous  wing 
covers  a considerable  portion  of  the  globe  of  the  eye. 
You  will  find  the  same  membranous  wing  still  more 
fully  developed  in  birds,  forming  a kind  of  curtain, 
or  third  eyelid,  called  by  naturalists  the  nictating 
membrane,  evidently  to  guard  their  eyes  against  the 
dazzling  influence  of  the  sun’s  rays.  The  master 
may  neglect  to  provide  his  slaves  with  a covering  for 
the  head  to  shield  the  eyes  from  the  brilliancy  of 
the  sun  while  laboring  in  the  fields,  and  such  neg- 
lect would  greatly  increase  the  irksomeness  of  labor 
under  a tropical  sun,  if  God,  in  His  good  provi- 
dence, had  not  provided  them  with  the  above-men- 
tioned contrivance  to  protect  the  eyes  against  the 
brightness  of  the  solar  rays.  You  have,  no  doubt, 
frequently  seen  slaves  throw  off  their  hats  as  an 
incumbrance  and  voluntarily  expose  themselves 
bare-headed  to  the  sun,  without  suffering  any  incon- 
venience from  the  intensity  of  his  light.’”  {An- 
thropology for  the  People,  pp.  21,  22). 

The  prominent  nose  of  the  white  is  in  striking 
contrast  to  the  flat  nose  of  the  negro,  which  has  the 


276 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


appearance  of  having  been  crushed  in.  The  fiat 
nose  of  the  negro  is  another  characteristic  of  the 
ape.  “ The  cartilage  at  the  end  of  the  nose  of  the 
white  man  is  divided,  or  split,  as  any  one  can  test  by 
placing  a finger  on  the  tip  of  that  organ;  but  in  the 
negro  nose  this  split  does  not  exist,  nor  does  it  exist 
in  mulattoes.  The  prostate  gland  in  the  negro.  is 
bilobular,  or,  to  put  it  in  popular  terms,  it  may  be 
said  to  be  divided  into  two  parts,  like  the  quadruma- 
nous  organization.  The  absence  of  the  ‘ nasal  spine  ’ 
in  the  negro  is  another  singular  difference.”  ( An- 
thropology for  the  People,  pp.  20,  21). 

The  comparatively  thin  lips  of  the  white  are  in 
striking  contrast  to  the  thick,  fluffy  lips  of  the  negro. 
This  thickness  of  the  lips  is  another  character  of  the 
ape. 

Quatrefages  says:  “The  thousand  differences  of 
form  and  dimensions  which  exhibit,  from  the  negro  of 
Guinea  with  his  enormous,  and,  as  it  were,  turned-up 
lips,  to  certain  Aryan  or  Semitic  whites,  can  neither  be 
measured  nor  described.  * * * It  may,  however, 
be  remarked  that  the  thickness  of  the  lips  is  very 
marked  in  all  negroes,  in  consequence  of  their  pro- 
jection in  front  of  the  maxillary  bones  and  the  teeth. 
The  mouth  of  the  negro  presents  another  character 
which  seems  to  me  to  have  been  generally  neglected, 
and  which  has  always  struck  me.  It  is  a kind  of 
clamminess  at  the  outer  border  of  the  commissures, 
and  seems  to  prevent  the  small  movements  of  the 
corner  of  the  mouth  which  pla}r  such  an  important 
part  in  the  physiognomy.  The  dissections  of  Mr. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


277 


Harny  have  explained  these  facts.  They  have 
shown  that  in  the  negroes  the  muscles  of  this  region 
are  both  more  developed  and  less  distinct  than  in 
the  whites.”  ( The  Human  Species , p.  367). 

The  prominent  chin  of  the  white  is  in  striking 
contrast  to  the  retreating  chin  of  the  negro.  This 
retreating  chin  is  another  character  of  the  ape. 
Winchell  says:  “The  retreating  contour  of  the  chin, 
as  compared  with  the  European,  approximates  the 
negro  to  the  chimpanzee  and  lower  mammals.” 
(Ibid,  p.  251) . 

The  front  teeth  of  the  white,  set  perpendicularly 
in  the  jaw,  are  in  striking  contrast  to  the  front  teeth 
of  the  negro,  which  set  slanting  in  the  jaw.  The 
slanting  teeth  is  another  character  of  the  ape. 
Haeckel  describes  as  “Prognathi”  those  whose 
jaws,  like  those  of  the  animal  snout,  strongly  pro- 
ject, and  whose  front  teeth,  therefore,  slope  in  front; 
and  men  with  straight  teeth  “ orthognathi,  whose 
jaws  project  but  little  and  whose  front  teeth  stand 
perpendicularly.” 

Dr.  Middleton  Michel,  Professor  in  the  South 
Carolina  Medical  College,  quoted  in  Anthropology  for 
the  People,  says:  “The  larynx  is  formed  of  true  and 
false  cartilages.  The  textural  peculiarity  of  these 
false  cartilages  is  that  they  are  delicate,  pliable, 
elastic,  and  never  undergo  ossification.  To  this 
class  belong  the  epiglottis  and  the  cartilages  of 
Santorini  and  Wrisburg.  The  so-called  cartilages 
of  Wrisburg,  cuneiform  or  cruciform  cartilages,  as 
they  are  also  designated,  are  developed  within  the 


278 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


aryteno  epiglottidian  folds,  one  on  each  side  of  the 
rima  glottidis,  or  chink  of  the  glottis.  Of  all  these  in- 
trinsic pieces  forming  or  supporting  the  wind  pipe, 
none  are  so  inconstant,  and,  when  present,  even 
variable  as  to  size,  as  the  Wrisburg  cartilages; 
scarcely  any  larger  than  the  Santorini  cartilages, 
they,  at  best,  are  concealed  within  the  mucous  folds 
of  the  aryteno  epiglottic  larynx,  and  are  very  diffi- 
cult to  find.  In  the  white  subject  I have  never  met 
them,  and  when  to  the  touch  and  sight  they  w'ere 
discernable,  it  has  always  been  in  the  negro.  I have 
made  a special  investigation  of  this  point,  and  I 
would  caution  those  who  seek  to  discover  these  deli- 
cate nodules  of  fibro-cartilage  that,  when  the  scalpel 
would  fail  to  discover  them,  their  presence  is  often 
satisfactorily  revealed  by  simply  rolling  the  aryteno 
epiglottic  folds  between  the  thumb  and  fore-finger, 
as  then  the  touch  at  once  detects  the  firmer  resist- 
ance of  an  extremely  delicate  body  unfolded  within 
these  mucous  layers  and  embedded  among  the  min- 
ute granules  of  sparcely-scattered  laryngeal  glands.” 
The  relatively  long,  slender  neck  of  the  white, 
is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  short,  thick  neck  of  the 
negro.  The  short,  thick  neck  is  another  character  of 
the  ape.  Burmeister,  quoted  by  Hartman,  says: 
“ The  negro’s  thick  neck  is  the  more  striking,  since 
it  is  generally  allied  with  a short  throat.  In  measu- 
ing  negroes  from  the  crown  of  the  head  to  the 
shoulder,  I have  found  the  interval  to  be  from 
nine  and  a quarter  to  nine  and  three  quarter  inches. 
In  Europeans  of  normal  height  this  interval  is  sel- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


279 


dom  less  than  ten  inches,  and  is  more  commonly 
eleven  inches  in  women,  and  twelve  in  men.  The 
shortness  of  the  neck,  as  well  as  the  relatively  small 
size  of  the  brain  pan,  and  the  large  size  of  the  face, 
may  be  more  readily  taken  as  an  approximation  to 
the  Simian  type,  since  all  apes  are  short-necked. 
* * * This  shortness  of  the  neck  of  the  negro  ex- 
plains his  greater  carrying  power,  and  his  prefer- 
ence for  carrying  burdens  on  his  head,  which  is 
much  more  fatiguing  to  the  European  on  account  of 
his  longer  and  weaker  neck.”  {Anthropoid  Apes,  pp. 
100,101). 

In  the  negro,  “ the  clavicle  is  longer  in  proportion 
to  the  humerus  than  in  the  white.  His  radius  is  per- 
ceptibly longer  in  proportion  to  the  humerus — thus 
approximating  to  that  of  the  ape.  The  scapular 
is  shorter  and  broader.”  {Preadimites,  p.  171). 
“ Among  negroes,  the  forearm  is  longer,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  arm,  than  is  the  case  with  whites.  The 
same  is  true  of  anthropoid  apes.  {Ibid) . Topinard 
says:  “The  arm  is  shortest  in  whites,  longest  in 

negroes.  Frequently  in  the  latter,  the  extremity  of 
the  middle  finger  touched  the  patella;  once  it  was 
twelve  millimeters  below  its  upper  border,  as  in  the 
gorilla.”  {Ibid,  p.  335).  Quatrefages  says:  “I 

have  already  observed  that  the  upper  limb  is  a little 
longer  in  the  negro  than  in  the  white.  The  essential 
cause  of  this  difference  is  the  relative  elongation  of 
the  fore-arm.  M.  Broca,  after  comparing  the  radius 
and  humerus  of  the  two  races,  gives  79.43  for  the 


280 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


negro,  and  73.82  for  the  European.”  ( The  Human 
Species,  p.  399) . 

Prof.  Winchell  says:  “Among  negroes  the  ca- 

pacity of  the  lungs  is  less  than  among  the  whites, 
and  the  circumference  of  the  chest  is  less.”  {Ibid, 
p.  173) . Quatrefages  says:  “ The  thoracic  cage  pre- 
sents some  facts  sufficiently  well  proved.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  form  of  the  sternum,  the  greater  or 
less  curvature  of  the  ribs,  it  is  generally  broad  and 
flattened  in  the  white,  narrow  and  prominent  in  the 
negro.”  {Ibid,  p.  397) . 

Topinard  says:  “ M.  Pruner-Bey  speaks  of  two 

important  characters  which  remind  one  of  the  ape. 
The  three  curvatures  of  the  spine  are  less  pro- 
nounced in  the  negro  than  in  the  white;  his  thorax 
is  relatively  flat  from  side  to  side,  and  slightl}”  cyl- 
indrical. The  shoulders,  he  adds,  are  less  powerful 
than  in  the  European.  The  umbilicus  is  nearer  the 
pubis;  the  iliac  bones  in  the  male  are  thicker  and 
more  vertical,  The  neck  of  the  femur  is  less  ob- 
lique.” {Anthropology,  p.  490) . 

Topinard  says:  “ Camper  and  Soemmering  ob- 
served that  the  pelvis  of  the  negro  in  its  ensemble  is 
narrower  than  that  of  the  white.  * * * In  1826 

Vrolik  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  pelvis  of  the 
male  negro — from  its  strength  and  thickness — from 
the  want  of  transparency  in  its  iliac  fossa? — from 
the  higher  projection  of  its  superior  extremity,  and 
from  the  spinous  processes  of  the  iliac  bones  being- 
less  projecting  and  less  separated  from  the  cotyloid 
cavities,  approximates  to  that  of  animals,  while  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


281 


pelvis  of  the  negress  maintains  a certain  slender- 
ness.” {Anthropology , pp.  305,  306) . “ Weber  found 
that  in  each  of  the  races  he  had  studied,  the  pelvis 
presented  a predominant  form,  which,  on  that  ac- 
count alone,  became  characteristic.  He  regarded 
the  inlet  as  being  generally  oval  and  of  large  trans- 
verse diameter  in  the  white  * * * cuneiform  and 
of  large  antero-posterior  diameter  in  negroes.  * * * 
M.  Verneau  confirms  the  assertions  of  the  greater 
number  of  his  predecessors,  as  to  the  reality  of  the 
characters  of  race  to  be  found  in  the  pelvis. 
Amongst  these  characters,  there  are  some  which 
have  been  pointed  out  in  the  negro  as  indications  of 
animalism.  * * * In  fact,  the  vertically  of  the 

ilia,  and  the  increase  of  the  antero-posterior  dia- 
meter of  the  pelvis  in  the  negro,  have  been  chiefly 
insisted  upon  as  recalling  characters  which  may  be 
observed  in  mammilla  generally,  and  particularly  in 
apes.”  {The  Human  Species,  pp.  397,  398).  Win- 
chell  says:  “The  negro  pelvis  averages  but  26-| 

inches  in  circumference;  that  of  the  white  race  is  33 
inches.  In  the  negro  it  is  more  inclined,  which  is 
another  quadmanous  character.”  {Preadamites,  p. 
249) . 

Topinard  places  the  relative  length  of  the  femur 
to  the  tibia  at  67.22  in  the  negro,  and  69.73  in  the 
white.  {Ibid) . In  contrasting  the  following  charac- 
ters of  the  negro  with  those  of  the  white,  Topinard 
says:  “The  femur  is  less  oblique,  the  tibia  more 
curved,  the  calf  of  the  leg  high  and  but  little  devel- 
oped, the  heel  broad  and  projecting,  the  foot  long, 


282 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


but  slightly  arched,  flat,  and  the  great  toe  rather 
shorter  than  in  the  white.  Negresses  age  rapidly, 
their  breasts  elongate  after  the  first  pregnancy,  and 
become  flabby  and  pendulous.”  {Ibid,  p.  490.)  The 
thin  calves  set  high  on  the  leg,  the  projecting  heel, 
etc.,  are  all  characters  of  the  ape.  Topinard  also 
points  out  differences  between  whites  and  negroes 
in  their  muscular  systems,  vessels,  viscera,  and  all 
the  internal  organs,  and  says:  “No  doubt  special 
peculiarities  in  the  internal  generative  organs  will 
be  discovered.  The  nervous  system  has  been  the 
subject  of  closer  study.  Soemmering,  and  after  him 
Jacquart,  demonstrated  that  the  nerves  of  the  negro, 
particularly  those  at  the  base  of  the  brain,  are 
larger  than  those  of  the  European.  It  has  been 
ascertained  that  his  cerebral  substance  is  not  so 
white.”  {Ibid,  pp.  307,  308,  309) . 

Quatrefages  says:  “ Relatively  to  the  white,  the 

negro  presents  a marked  predominance  of  peripheral 
nervous  expansions.  The  trunks  are  thicker,  and 
the  fibres  more  numerous,  or  perhaps  merely  easier 
to  isolate  and  to  preserve  on  account  of  their  volume 
alone.  On  the  other  hand,  the  cerebral  centers,  or 
at  least  the  brain,  appear  to  be  inferior  in  develop- 
ment.” {Ibid,  p.  401).  There  are  also  some  slight 
variations  between  the  respiration,  circulation,  ani- 
mal temperature,  secretions,  etc.,  of  the  white  man 
and  the  negro.  {Ibid,  409) . 

Dr.  Mosley,  quoted  by  Winchell,  says:  “Ne- 

groes are  void  of  sensibility  to  a surprising  degree. 
They  are  not  subject^  to  nervous  diseases.  They 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


283 


sleep  soundly  in  every  disease,  nor  does  any  mental 
"disturbance  keep  them  awake.  They  bear  chirurgi- 
cal  operations  much  better  than  white  people;  and 
what  would  be  the  cause  of  insupportable  pain  to  a 
white  man,  a negro  would  almost  disregard.” 
(Preadamites,  p.  178).  Dr.  Winchell  says:  “The 

mental  indolence  of  negroes  is  further  shown  in  the 
comparative  records  of  insanity  and  idiocy.  While 
among  whites,  mania  occurs  in  the  proportion  of 
0.76  per  thousand,  among  negroes  it  is  only  0.10  per 
thousand.  While  idiocy  among  the  former  is  0.73 
per  thousand,  among  the  latter  it  is  0.37  per  thou- 
sand.” (Ibid,  p.  182) . “ In  the  negro,  the  develop- 

ment of  the  body  is  generally  in  advance  of  the 
the  white.  His  wisdom  teeth  are  cut  sooner;  and  in 
estimating  the  age  of  his  skull,  we  must  reckon  it  as 
at  least  five  years  in  advance  of  the  white.”  (Ibid, 
p.  175).  The  exemption  of  the  negro  from  malarial 
diseases,  and  sundry  other  pathological  affections  of 
the  white  race,  is  another  significant  diagnostic.” 
(Ibid,  p.  180).  Quatrefages  says:  “Of  all  human 

races  the  white  is  the  most  sensitive  to  marsh  fevers, 
and  the  black  the  least  so.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
negro  race  suffers  more  than  any  other  from 
phthisis.”  (Ibid,  p.  426) . 

Dr.  J.  Hendree,  of  Aniston,  Alabama,  in  writing 
to  Professor  Winchell,  says: 

“Let  me  mention  one  fact  especially,  drawn 
from  my  own  experience  of  forty  years.  The  coarse- 
ness of  their  (the  negroes)  organization  makes  them 


284 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EVE. 


require  about  double  the  dose  of  ordinary  medicine 
used  for  whites.” 

Dr.  M.  L.  Barrow,  of  Drayton,  Georgia,  writing 
to  Dr.  Winchell,  says: 

“I  have  practiced  among  the  negroes  for  over 
forty  years.  * * * Your  information  in  respect 

to  the  doses  of  medicine  for  the  colored  people,  cor- 
responds with  my  experience — except  as  regards 
opiates;  and  perhaps  they  will  bear  large  quantities 
of  these,  as  I have  known  some  to  take  very  large 
doses  with  impunity.”  ( Preadamites , p.  177) . 

Desirous  of  comparing  the  anatomy  of  one  of 
the  so-called  “ lower  races  of  men,”  with  that  of  the 
white  and  the  apes,  Prof.  Huxley  selected  as  his 
specimen,  a “ Bosjesman  Negro,”  from  one  of  the  so- 
called  “ black  races  ” which  he,  Winched  and  others, 
class  as  negroes.  After  comparing  the  physical  and 
mental  organisms  of  the  “ Bosjesman  Negro,”  with 
those  of  the  white,  on  the  one  side,  and  with  those 
of  the  gorilla,  chimpanzee,  and  other  apes  on  the 
other  side,  Prof.  Huxley  states  the  result  of  his  ob- 
servations as  follows:  “The  difference  between  the 
highest  and  lowest  men  is  far  greater,  both  relatively 
and  absolutely,  than  that  between  the  lowest  man 
and  the  highest  ape.  The  latter,  as  has  been  seen, 
is  represented  by,  say,  twelve  ounces  cerebral  sub- 
stance absolutely;  or  by  32:20  relatively;  but  as  the 
largest  recorded  human  brain  weighed  between  65 
and  66  ounces,  the  former  difference  is  represented 
by  more  than  33  ounces  absolutely,  or  by  65:32  rel- 
atively. Regarded  systematically,  the  cerebral  dif- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


285 


ferences  of  man  and  apes  are  not  of  more  than  ge- 
neric value — his  family  distinction  resting  chiefly  on 
his  dentition,  his  pelvis  and  his  lower  limbs. 

“ Thus,  whatever  system  of  organs  be  studied, 
the  comparison  of  their  modifications  in  the  ape 
series  leads  to  one  and  the  same  result — that  the 
structural  differences  which  separate  man  from  the 
gorilla  and  the  chimpanzee  are  not  so  great  as  those 
which  separate  the  gorilla  from  the  lower  apes.” 
{Man's  Place  in  Nature , pp.  122,  123) . 

Thus,  Prof.  Huxley  found  by  comparative  ana- 
tomy that  the  difference  between  the  physical  and 
mental  organism  of  the  white  and  “ Bosjesman  Ne- 
gro” are  immeasurable;  he  also  found  that  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  physical  and  mental  organism 
of  the  “ Bosjesman  Negro  ” and  the  gorilla  and  chim- 
panzee, are  not  so  great  as  those  which  separate  the 
gorilla  from  the  tailed  apes;  that  they  are  not  of  more 
than  generic  value.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  compa- 
rative anatomy  furnished  Prof.  Huxley  the  most 
abundant,  absolute  proof  that  the  negro  is  an  ape,  it 
would  be  interesting  to  learn  upon  what  authority 
he  declared  him  a “man.”  He  proved  him  a mon- 
key, and  pronounced  him  a man — proved  him  a 
beast  and  accepted  him  as  a brother. 

The  above  comparisons  clearly  show  that  in  his 
physical  and  mental  organisms,  the  negro  differs 
from  the  white;  and  that  at  every  essential  point  he 
approximates  the  organisms  below.  We  have  also 
shown  that  in  their  ability  to  make  and  handle  tools, 
the  lower  apes  closely  approach  the  negro.  Yet  none 


286 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


of  the  lower  apes,  not  even  the  so-called  anthropoids, 
can  discharge  the  many  duties  which  devolve  upon 
servants.  They  could  never  handle  and  care  for  do- 
mestic animals,  work  metals,  fashion  implements, 
break  the  ground,  plant,  cultivate,  and  harvest 
crops;  and  build  houses,  fences,  etc.  In  addition  to 
this,  it  is  significant  that  no  one  of  the  so-called  an- 
thropoids can  be  said  to  be  “ most  absolutely  like 
man.”  The  gorilla  approaches  nearest  to  man  in 
the  structure  of  the  hand  and  foot,  the  chimpanzee 
in  important  structural  details  in  the  skull,  the  orang 
in  the  development  of  the  brain,  and  the  gibbon  in 
that  of  the  thorax.”  ( The  Evolution  of  Man , Vol.  II, 

p.  181). 

When  we  pause  to  reflect  that  all  knowledge  of 
the  fact  that  the  negro  is  an  ape,  was  lost  to  the 
world  ages  ago,  it  is  easy  to  see  that,  but  for  the  ex- 
istence of  the  lower  apes,  it  would  be  impossible  for 
us,  at  this  late  day,  to  prove  that  he  is  not  a man; 
and  this,  too,  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that,  in  his  physi- 
cal and  mental  characters,  his  habits,  mode  of  life, 
manners,  gestures,  language,  and  his  achievements, 
he  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  white.  But  with 
this  interesting  family  of  animals,  shading  up  from 
lemur  to  the  negro,  we  are  able  with  the  assistance 
of  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences  to  determine  that 
the  negro  is  one  of  the  ape  family;  that  he  simply 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  ape  family,  as  the  lion 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  cat  family.  Hence,  the 
lower  apes,  though  unfit  for  general  domestic  pur- 
poses, are  invaluable,  in  that  they  enable  us  to  de- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


287 


termine  beyond  question  the  negro’s  true  position 
in  the  universe — that  he  is  merely  an  ape. 

The  negro  possesses  articulate  speech,  the  erect 
posture,  a well-formed  hand  and  foot,  and  is  withal 
a tool-making,  tool-handling  animal.  These  charac- 
teristics pre-eminently  fit  him  for  the  position  of 
servant,  while  the  low  order  of  his  mentality  dis- 
qualifies him  for  a higher  sphere;  as  is  well  known, 
the  negro  is  an  animal  with  which  man  may  asso- 
ciate^ himself  carnally,  and  produce  offspring,  that 
will  be  indefinitely  fertile,  and  capable  of  utilizing 
the  arts  of  civilization,  and  of  acquiring  a knowledge 
of  God  and  His  dealings  with  man;  besides,  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that,  though  the  negro  is  omni- 
vorous, he  manifests  a strong  preference  for  the 
flesh  of  man  as  an  article  of  food.  These  charac- 
teristics clearly  identify  the  negro  as  the  creature 
described  in  scripture  as  the  beast  of  the  field. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


The  Creation  of  Man. 

“And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness:  and  let  them  have  dominion  over 
the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and 
over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth,  and  over 
every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth. 

“ So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the 
image  of  God  created  he  him;  male  and  female  cre- 
ated he  them: 

“And  God  blessed  them,  and  God  said  unto 
tnem,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the 
earth,  and  subdue  it:  and  have  dominion  over  the 
fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over 
every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth  ” 
(Gen.  i,  26,  27,  28). 

The  broad  distinction  which  the  inspired  writer 
makes  between  man  and  the  animals,  and  plants 
which  preceded  him  is  shown  as  follows: 

1.  In  the  proposition  to  make  man:  “Let  us 

make  man,”  etc. 

2.  That  neither  the  earth  nor  the  waters  would 
be  allowed  to  bring  forth  man;  God  Himself  would 
create  man. 

3.  That,  unlike  the  animals  and  plants,  man 
was  not  made  after  any  kind,  but  was  created  “ in 
the  image  of  God  ” — “ after  His  likeness.” 


288 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


289 


4.  That,  unlike  the  plants  and  animals,  which 
were  made  in  great  numbers  and  varieties,  man  was 
created  a single  pair. 

5.  That,  unlike  his  treatment  of  the  animals, 
the  inspired  writer  tells  us  that  God  designed  man 
for  a specific  work;  that  man  was  to  have  dominion 
over  the  earth  and  the  animals. 

6.  That  when  created,  man  was  commanded  to 
“ subdue  ” the  earth,  and  “ have  domain  over  the  fish 
of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over 
every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth.” 

It  is  plain  that  to  “ subdue  ” the  earth  means  to 
develop  its  resources;  for,  just  in  proportion  as  man 
subdues  a piece  of  wild  uncultivated  land,  he  neces- 
sarily reduces  it  into  a cultivated  state,  and  devel- 
opes  its  resources.  Hence,  the  Biblical  term  “ sub- 
due,” in  this  text,  and  our  term  “ develop,”  are 
synonyomous.  To  “ have  dominion  ” means  to 
dominate — to  have  control.  Hence  the  term  “ domin- 
ion” in  this  text,  and  our  term  “control”  are 
synonymous.  Thus,  man  was  designed  to  develop 
all  the  resources  of  this  globe,  and  when  created  he 
was  at  once  assigned  to  this  great  task.  He  was  also 
designed  to  “ have  dominion  ” — to  exercise  control 
over  the  animals  and  utilize  them  in  his  efforts  to 
accomplish  the  development  of  the  earth.  This  was 
a task  of  such  magnitude  as  only  the  mind  of  Diety 
could  have  conceived;  and  man’s  successful  accom- 
plishments of  it  required  that  man  be  endowed  with 
mind  of  the  highest  order — mind  at  once  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial;  and  man’s  brilliant  achieve- 


290 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


ments  when  viewed  in  the  light  of  history,  traditions, 
monumental  evidence,  and  our  daily  observation, 
shows  that  he  was  thus  endowed.  All  the  indica- 
tions point  to  the  fact  that  if  man  had  respected  the 
design  of  God  in  creating  him,  and  had  applied 
himself  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  great  task 
for  which  he  was  designed,  and  to  which  he  was 
assigned  in  the  creation,  this  earth  would  long 
since  have  been  in  the  highest  state  of  cultivation; 
its  resources  would  all  have  been  discovered,  appreci- 
ated, and  developed.  The  besetting  sin  which  de- 
graded man  from  his  first  and  high  estate,  as  the 
dominant  power  of  the  earth,  will  be  fully  revealed 
in  the  following  pages  of  this  work. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  our  English  version  of 
the  Bible,  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  is  divided 
into  two  chapters.  As  above  quoted,  the  first  chap- 
ter acquaints  us  with  the  leading  events  of  the  creation 
in  the  order  of  their  occurrence,  beginning  with  the 
creation  of  matter,  and  ending  with  the  creation  of 
man;  the  design  of  God  in  creating  man,  and  the 
duties  to  which  he  and  his  descendants  were  assigned 
in  the  creation.  If  the  narrative  of  creation  ended 
with  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  could  readily 
see  that  no  kinship  exists  between  man  and  the  ani- 
mals; that  they  were  made  at  different  periods;  and 
were  designed  for  different  purposes;  that  man  was 
designed  to  rule,  and  the  animals  to  be  controlled. 
But  we  would  be  hopelessly  ignorant  upon  the  fol- 
lowing important  subjects:  (1)  What  character  in 

man  pre-eminently  distinguishes  him  from  the  ani- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


291 


mals,  and  establishes  between  God  and  man  the 
close  relationship  of  father  and  son;  thus  making 
man  an  immortal  being — an  heir  to  eternity — while 
the  animals  are  mere  creatures  of  time.  (2)  How  man 
was  brought  into  existence,  and  what  elements  en- 
tered into  his  composition.  (3)  What  new  element 
was  introduced  into  the  material  universe  on  the 
sixth  creative  day  in  combination  with  matter  and 
with  mind  as  presented  in  the  physical  and  mental 
organisms  of  Adam,  and  which  elevated  man  to  the 
lofty  dignity  of  a creation.  (4)  Was  man  and  woman 
created  simultaneously,  or  did  one  precede  the  other, 
and  if  so,  which  one?  These  and  other  important 
questions  would  have  been  left  to  mere  speculation. 
But,  happily  the  narrative  of  creation  extends 
through  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis;  and  in  this 
chapter  we  are  given  a more  detailed  account  of  the 
origin  and  location  of  the  elements  of  plant  and  ani- 
mal life — that  they  are  inherent  in  matter ; the  material 
of  which  man’s  physical  organism  is  formed;  the  man- 
ner of  his  formation;  the  elements  which  enter  into 
his  composition,  and  which  pre-eminently  distinguish 
man  from  the  animals;  establishes  between  God  and 
man  the  close  relationship  of  father  and  son;  and 
thus  endows  man  with  immortality;  and  also  en- 
lightens us  as  to  this  new  element  which  made  its 
first  appearance  in  the  material  universe  in  combi- 
nation with  matter  and  with  mind  in  Adam ; the  fact 
that  the  male  side  or  part  of  the  Adamic  creation 
preceded  the  female;  that  man,  unlike  the  animals, 


292 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


was  assigned  to  a definite  place  of  abode,  and  to  a 
specific  task  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  etc. 

In  verse  7 of  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  the 
inspired  writer  says: 

“ And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life;  and  man  became  a living  soul.” 

The  information  contained  in  this  text  is  inval- 
uable for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  The  “dust  of  the  ground”  of  which  “God 
formed  man  is  a part  of  the  original  creation — mat- 
ter. This  being  true,  it  follows  that  man’s  physical 
organism  is  composed  of  matter;  and  that  man’s 
physical  life,  like  that  of  the  plant  or  the  animal,  is 
derived  from  the  elements  of  life,  which  are  inher- 
ent in  matter. 

2.  It  enables  us  to  realize  that  the  broad  dis- 
tinction which  exists  between  man  and  the  animals 
is  not  due  to  man’s  possession  of  more  perfect  phys- 
ical and  mental  organisms;  for,  in  these  respects  the 
difference  between  them  is  merely  one  of  degree , 
not  of  kind.  Hence,  when,  in  the  Creation,  man’s 
physical  and  mental  organisms  were  completed,  he, 
like  the  animals,  was  simply  a combination  of  matter 
and  mind.  At  this  period  in  his  history  there  ex- 
isted between  God  and  man,  as  existed  between  God 
and  the  animals,  only  such  relationship  as  naturally 
exists  between  the  Creator  and  His  creature — the 
relationship  of  the  artist  to  the  product  of  his  art. 
In  this  condition,  man,  possessed  of  physical  and 
mental  organisms  of  the  highest  order — and  life — 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


293 


physical  life — derived  from  the  combination  of  the 
elements  of  life,  which  were  inherent  in  the  matter 
of  which  his  physical  organism  was  composed,  might 
have  lived  out  a mere  animal  existence  on  the  earth, 
without  further  endowments  from  the  hand  of  God. 
If  mated  with  a female  whose  exalted  physical  and 
mental  organisms  corresponded  with  his  own,  he 
might  even  have  begotten  offspring  which  would 
have  been  indefinitely  fertile,  and  to  whom  he  would 
transmit  his  elevated  physical  and  mental  characters ; 
in  this  case,  however,  Adam  and  his  progeny  would 
have  been  mere  animals,  distinguished  from  the  fish, 
and  fowl,  and  beasts  only  as  these  are  distinguished 
from  each  other;  and,  like  their  fellow  animals,  they 
would  have  had  no  knowledge  of,  nor  interest  in,  an 
eternity  beyond. 

But  such  was  not  God’s  will;  it  was  not  a part  of 
His  plan  of  creation  that  man  should  thus  be  placed 
on  the  base  level  of  the  brute;  with  no  laws  govern- 
ing his  conduct  save  those  which  govern  the  animals 
in  their  relations  to  each  other;  with  no  hope  of  pres- 
ent or  future  reward  as  an  incentive  to  the  perform- 
ance of  good  acts;  and  no  fear  of  present  or  future 
punishment  as  a restraint  upon  the  commission  of 
bad  acts;  it  was  not  God’s  intention  that  man  should 
live  out  a mere  animal  existence  on  the  earth — a 
mere  creature  of  time;  He  had  no  desire  that  between 
Himself  and  man  there  should  exist  only  such  rela- 
tionship as  naturally  exists  between  the  Creator  and 
His  creature — the  relationship  of  the  artist  to  the 
product  of  his  art. 


294 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


God  entertained  nobler,  grander,  more  sublime 
conception  with  regard  to  man,  that  peerless  creature 
whom  He  proposed  to  honor  by  the  bestowal  of  His 
likeness,  and  His  image,  and  to  whom  He  would  con- 
fide dominion  over  the  works  of  His  hands.  He 
desired  that  between  Himself  and  man  there  should 
exist  a close  relationship  of  father  and  son;  that 
the  intercourse  between  the  Heavenly  Father  and 
His  earthly  son  should  not  be  confined  to  time,  but 
would  continue  throughout  eternity;  this  required 
that,  in  addition  to  his  physical  life,  derived  from 
matter,  man  should  be  endowed  with  immortal  life; 
this  required  that  God  would  incorporate  with  man’s 
physical  and  mental  organisms,  a part  of  His  own 
substance;  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  ennob- 
bling,  far-reaching  design,  “ God  breathed  into 
man’s  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became 
a living  soul.”  Thus  the  three  creations,  Matter, 
Mind,  and  Soul,  which  are  necessary  to  perfect  man, 
were  combined  in  “Adam,  the  son  of  God.” 

“The  breath  of  life” — immortal  life — itself  a 
part  of  His  own  substance,  which  God  breathed  into 
man’s  nostrils,  was  a new  element — a Creation — 
which  was  thus  introduced  into  the  material  uni- 
verse; and  when  God  incorporated  it  with  the  phy- 
sical and  mental  organisms  of  Adam,  He  at  once 
established  between  Himself  and  man  the  close  rela- 
tionship of  father  and  son,  transformed  him  from  a 
mere  combination  of  matter  and  mind,  to  the  lofty 
dignity  of  a Creation.  “ Thou  mad’st  him  a little 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


295 


lower  than  the  angels,  and  hast  crowned  him  with 
glory  and  honor.” 

If  further  evidence  was  necessary  to  show  that 
Adam  was  the  son  of  God,  our  Saviour  furnishes  it 
by  His  recognition  of  the  pure-blooded  descendants 
of  Adam  as  His  brethren  and  sisters.  {Matt,  xii,  49; 
also  Mark  iii,  35) . We  might  also  point  to  the  fact 
that  the  ancestry  of  the  Saviour  is  traced  to  “Adam, 
the  son  of  God.”  {Lulce  iii,  38) . 

Well  might  David  exclaim  in  contemplating 
God’s  creation  of  man:  “I  will  praise  Thee,  for  I 
am  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made;  marvelous  are 
Thy  works;  and  that  my  soul  knoweth  right  well. 
My  substance  was  not  hid  from  Thee,  when  I was 
made  in  secret,  and  curiously  wrought  in  the  lowest 
parts  of  the  earth.  Thine  eyes  did  see  my  substance, 
yet  being  imperfect,  and  in  Thy  book  all  my  num- 
bers were  written,  which  in  continuance  were  fash- 
ioned, when  as  yet  there  was  none  of  them.”  (Ps. 
cxxxix) . 

Man  and  woman  were  not  created  simultane- 
ously; the  male  side  or  part  of  the  Adamic  creation 
was  first  created,  and  afterwards  the  female;  but 
what  length  of  time  intervened  between  these  great 
events,  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining;  but  that 
it  was  a considerable  period,  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  it  was  in  this  interval  that  “ Adam  gave  names 
to  all  cattle,  and  to  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  to  every 
beast  of  the  field.”  To  successfully  accomplish  this 
great  task  would  have  been  creditable  to  a Linnaeus 
or  Cuvier;  it  was  a mental  work  requiring  the  ut- 


296 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


most  observation  and  the  finest  discrimination. 
Hence,  Adam’s  successful  accomplishment  of  it,  goes 
far  to  prove  the  splendor  of  his  intellectuality. 

When  the  great  task  of  naming  the  animals  was 
finished,  the  earth  was  not  graced  by  the  presence 
of  woman;  “for  Adam  there  was  not  found  an 
helpmeet  for  him.”  So  long  as  only  the  male  side 
or  part  of  the  Adamic  creation  was  in  existence,  it 
was  incomplete,  and  utterly  incapable  of  obeying  the 
first  command  given  in  the  creation,  “ be  fruitful 
and  multiply.”  Realizing  this,  the  great  Artist  of 
the  universe  looked  out  upon  His  yet  unfinished 
creation,  and  said:  “It  is  not  good  that  man  should 
be  alone;  I will  make  him  a helpmeet  for  him. 

“ And  the  Lord  God  caused  a deep  sleep  to  fall 
upon  Adam  and  he  slept;  and  He  took  one  of  ribs, 
and  closed  up  the  flesh  instead  thereof.  And  the  rib, 
which  the  Lord  God  had  taken  from  man,  made  he 
a woman,  and  brought  her  unto  the  man.” 

Forgetful  that  like  produces  like,  and  that  by 
virtue  of  this  principle  the  native  characteristics  of 
man  must  have  been  more  or  less  active  in  all  ages 
of  his  history,  we,  of  modern  time  are  accustomed  to 
boast  our  greater  enlightenment  as  compared  to  that 
of  the  ancients;  and  in  proof  of  this,  we  proudly 
point  to  the  sacredness  of  marriage,  woman’s  honor- 
able position  in  society,  and  her  higher  education. 
But  scraps  of  very  ancient  history,  bits  of  monu- 
mental evidence,  and  fragments  of  old  traditions 
that  have  survived  the  ravages  of  time,  and  de- 
scended to  us,  all  point  to  the  fact  that  this  is  merely 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


297 


a reformatory  movement,  which  indicates  a disposi- 
tion on  our  part  to  return  to  primitive  conditions. 
Among  the  Egyptians,  that  ancient  people  who  filled 
the  valley  of  the  Nile  with  magnificent  cities, 
adorned  with  sumptuous  palaces,  splendid  temples, 
and  all  the  evidences  of  the  highest  culture,  the  po- 
sition of  woman  was  honorable  and  marriage  was 
sacred;  not  even  the  king  was  allowed  a plurality  of 
wives;  woman’s  mental  faculties  were  highly  culti- 
vated, and  her  rights  respected  and  carefully  guarded; 
the  wife  could  hold  property  in  her  own  right  and 
manage  her  financial  affairs;  and  if  divorced,  her  dow- 
er was  returned  to  her  with  a high  rate  of  interest. 
Among  the  Toltics,  that  great  people  who  developed 
one  of  the  splendid  civilizations  of  America  in  ancient 
times,  the  position  of  woman  was  honorable;  her  men- 
tal faculties  were  highly  cultivated,  and  marriage 
was  sacred.  Among  the  Aryans,  who,  thousands 
of  years  ago,  developed  the  magnificent  civilization 
of  ancient  India,  marriage  was  sacred,  the  position 
of  woman  was  honorable,  and  the  culture  bestowed 
upon  her  mental  faculties  is  attested  by  the  Vedas, 
which  abound  in  beautiful  hymns  and  poems,  which 
were  composed  and  written  by  the  ladies  and  queens 
of  the  Aryans. 

When  we  ascend  the  stream  of  time  in  our 
efforts  to  discover  the  fountain  source  of  this  exalted 
characteristic  in  man — his  respectful  devotion  to 
woman,  it  leads  us  to  the  Creation.  We  find  that 
the  earliest  manifestation  of  this  ennobling  charac- 
teristic was  displayed  in  the  first  recorded  utterance 


298 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


of  Adam,  on  his  reception  of  that  lovely  “ help- 
meet” which  God  made  for  him:  “This  is  now 

born  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh,  she  shall 
be  called  woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of  man. 
Therefore  shall  a man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother, 
and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife;  and  they  shall  be  of 
one  flesh.” 

We  would  search  the  annals  of  the  world  in 
vain  for  a sentiment  at  once  more  chaste,  more 
chivalrous,  and  more  devotional  to  our  mother’s 
lovely  sex;  no  one  of  the  intrepid  knights  who 
weilded  a lance  in  the  Age  of  Chivalry,  ever  gave 
utterance  to  a sentiment  more  chivalrous,  toward 
the  lady  of  his  choice,  whose  feelings,  whose  inter- 
est, and  whose  honor  he  stood  pledged  to  defend 
with  his  life.  But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  man’s 
chivalrous  devotion  to  his  mother’s  sex,  is  a charac- 
ter peculiar  to  man;  that  it  is  traceable  to  the  Crea- 
tion, and  had  its  origin  in  Adam,  we  should  naturally 
expect  to  find  traces  of  it  in  the  literature  and  tradi- 
tions of  those  ancient  peoples,  the  remains  of  whose 
splendid  civilization,  even  in  their  ruins,  at  once 
excites  the  wonder,  and  challenges  the  admiration 
of  the  modern  world.  Hence,  to  our  minds  there 
was  no  occasion  for  the  surprise  which  greeted  the 
announcement  made  some  fifty  years  ago  that,  in 
addition  to  their  religious,  scientific,  historical,  and 
poetic  literature,  the  ancient  Hindoos  possessed 
many  beautiful  dramas. 

One  of  these  fine  dramas,  “ Sakoontala,”  was 
composed  by  Kalidasa,  an  ancient  Hindoo  bard,  who 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE„ 


299 


is  styled  “ the  Shakespeare  of  India.”  Sakoontala 
was  translated  into  English  by  Professor  Monier 
Williams,  who  says  of  it:  “Indeed  the  popularity  of 

this  play  with  the  natives  of  India  exceeds  that  of 
any  other  dramatic,  and  probably  of  any  other  poet- 
ical composition.  But  it  is  not  in  India  alone  that  the 
Sakoontala  is  known  and  admired.  Its  excellence  is 
now  recognized  in  every  literary  circle  throughout 
the  continent  of  Europe;  and  its  beauties,  if  not  uni- 
versally known  and  appreciated,  are  at  least  acknowl- 
edged by  many  learned  men  in  every  country  of  the 
world.  The  four-well  known  lines  of  Goethe,  so 
often  quoted  in  relation  to  the  Indian  drama,  may  be 
here  repeated: 

‘ Would’st  thou  the  young  year’s  blossoms  and  the 
fruits  of  its  decline, 

And  all  by  which  the  soul  is  charmed,  enraptured, 
feasted,  fed? 

Would  thou  the  earth  and  heaven  itself  in  one  sole 
name  combine? 

I name  thee,  0 Sakoontala!  and  all  at  once  is  said.’ 
* * * ‘ Alexander  Von  Humbolt,  in  treating 

of  Indian  poetry,  observes:  ‘Kalidasa,  the  cele- 

brated author  of  the  Sakoontala,  is  a masterly  de- 
scriber  of  the  influence  which  nature  exercises  upon 
the  minds  of  lovers.  * * * Tenderness  in  the 

expression  of  feeling,  and  richness  of  fancy,  have 
assigned  to  him  his  lofty  place  among  the  poets  of 
all  nations.’  ” (See  introduction  to  Sakoontala , pp.  6, 
7,8). 

The  lofty,  chivalrous  sentiments  toward  woman, 


300 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


which  characterized  the  utterances  of  Adam  on  his 
reception  of  Eve,  breathes  in  every  line  of  the  fol- 
lowing beautiful  tribute  which  Kalidasa  pays  to  wo- 
man: 

“ Man’s  all-wise  maker,  wishing  to  create 
A faultless  form,  whose  matchless  symmetry 
Should  far  transcend  Creation’s  choicest  works, 
Did  call  together  by  His  mighty  will, 

And  garner  up  in  His  eternal  mind, 

A bright  assemblage  of  all  lovely  things: 

And  then,  as  in  a picture,  fashion  them 
Into  one  perfect  and  ideal  form.” 

( Salcoontala , p.  43) . 
Prior  to  the  advent  of  man,  there  was  no  con- 
necting link — no  bond  of  kinship  between  God  and 
the  material  universe;  the  relationship  between  them 
was  merely  that  of  the  architect  to  the  structure 
He  had  devised  and  builded.  All  things  in  the  ma- 
terial universe  were  mortal,  there  was  nothing  im- 
mortal. But  the  proposition  to  make  man,  as  above 
quoted,  announced  the  end  of  these  conditions;  it 
heralded  the  advent  of  a being  who  would  form  the 
link  of  kinship  between  the  Creator  and  His  crea- 
tion. In  the  execution  of  this  Divine  proposition 
man  was  created  as  above  described.  And  our  ac- 
ceptance of  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation,  leaves 
us  no  alternative  than  to  decide  that  man  is  a crea- 
tion, just  as  matter  and  mind  are  creations.  This 
being  true,  it  follows  that  man  is  no  more  akin  to 
the  animals  than  he  is  to  the  plant  or  the  planet. 
Paul  furnishes  further  evidence  of  this  in  his  declara- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


301 


tion:  “All  flesh  is  not  the  same  flesh;  but  there 

is  one  kind  of  flesh  of  men,  another  flesh  of 
beasts,  another  of  fishes,  and  another  of  birds.” 
Thus  we  are  emphatically  taught  that  these  four 
kinds  of  flesh  are  as  distinct  from  each  other  as  if 
the  one  made  its  appearance  upon  and  inhabited  the 
earth,  the  other  Saturn,  the  other  Mars,  and  the  other 
Jupiter.  This  being  true,  it  follows  that  we  might 
with  just  the  same  propriety  consider  man  a mem- 
ber of  the  siderial  kingdom  as  to  consider  him 
merely  a member  of  the  animal  kingdom.  Hence, 
to  recognize  any  kinship  between  man  and  the 
animals,  we  must  repudiate  the  teachings  of  Moses 
and  St.  Paul. 

Prior  to  the  advent  of  woman,  the  inspired 
writer  says:  * * * “For  Adam  was  not  found 

an  helpmeet  for  him.”  (Gen.  ii,  20).  This  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  Adam  was  the  sole  representative  of 
the  flesh  of  man.  Then,  in  order  that  there  should 
be  no  doubt  as  to  whether  Adam  and  Eve  were  of 
“ one  kind  of  flesh,”  God  made  the  female  man  out 
out  of  the  male  man.  Thus  completed  and  prefected 
by  the  presence  of  woman,  the  Adamic  family  could 
beget  offspring,  and  increase  its  numbers  on  the 
earth,  and  ultimately  discharge  the  duties  for  which 
they  were  designed,  and  to  which  God  assigned  them 
in  the  Creation.  Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  man  the 
male,  and  woman  the  female,  are  the  mutually  de- 
pendent sides  or  parts  of  the  immortal  life  system  of 
the  earth.  Hence,  the  presence  of  each  is  necessary 
to  the  existence  and  perpetuation  of  the  system. 


302 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


The  combination  of  the  three  creations — matter, 
mind  and  soul,  as  they  exist  in  man,  are  transmit- 
able  through  pure  Adamic  channels;  that  is,  by 
sexual  intercourse  between  man  and  woman.  Hence, 
when  the  male  and  female  sides  or  parts  of  the 
Adamic  creation  were  perfected  in  Adam  and  Eve, 
God  commanded  them  to  “be  fruitful  and  multiply 
and  replenish  the  earth.”  The  reasons  for  this  are 
evident:  (1)  Immense  numbers  of  men  and  women 
were  necessary  in  order  to  develop  the  resources  of 
earth,  and  exercise  control  over  the  animals.  (2) 
That,  by  a life  of  obedience  to  God’s  laws,  Adam  and 
Eve,  and  their  descendants,  would  fit  their  souls  for 
the  realms  of  the  blest,  so  that  when  their  physical 
dissolution  occurred,  they  would  be  gathered  to  their 
reward  in  eternity,  and  thus  increase  the  population 
of  heaven. 

In  discussing  this  question,  let  us  bear  in  mind 
that  matter  is  the  basis  of  all  formations  in  the  ma- 
terial universe,  whether  it  exists  alone  as  in  the 
plant;  or  in  combination  with  mind,  as  in  the  ani- 
mal; or  in  combination  with  mind  and  soul,  as  in 
man.  It  should  be  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  re- 
production of  these  three  creations,  as  they  exist  in 
plants,  in  animals,  and  in  man,  are  governed  by  laws 
which  God  enacted  in  the  creation;  and  which  are 
positive  and  unerring  in  their  operations  and  results. 

By  way  of  ascertaining  the  operations  and  re- 
sults of  these  laws,  we  shall  first  investigate  the  re- 
production of  plants,  in  which  only  the  matter  cre- 
ation is  represented;  and,  inasmuch  as  the  manner 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


303 


in  which  they  are  reproduced  is  generally  under- 
stood, we  shall  take  as  our  illustration  the  flowering 
plants,  in  which  the  sexes  are  represented  in  the 
male  and  in  the  female  bloom.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  reproduction  of  these  plants  results  from 
the  union  of  the  pollen,  or  fecundating  dust  of  the 
stamen  of  the  male  bloom  with  the  pollen  or  fecundat- 
ing dust  of  the  pistil  of  the  female  bloom.  This  indi- 
cates that  one  side  or  part  of  the  matter  creation,  with 
all  the  elements  of  life — physical  life — exists  in  the 
male  bloom;  and  that  its  corresponding  side  or  part 
exists  in  the  female  bloom;  these  opposite,  but  mut- 
ually dependent  sides  or  parts,  each  act  as  a magnet 
which  attracts  its  corresponding  side  or  part  in  the  op- 
posite sex;  and,  when  the  two  are  united  in  the  female 
bloom,  the  matter  creation  is  perfected  and  repro- 
duced in  the  young  plant.  But  if,  as  frequently  oc- 
curs, the  matter  creation  as  it  exists  in  its  imperfect 
state  in  the  respective  germs  of  the  male  and  female 
blooms,  are  not  united  in  the  female  bloom,  these 
vital  elements  are  wasted,  and  the  reproduction  of 
the  matter  creation  in  the  young  plant  is  not  accom- 
plished. 

The  same  law  governs  the  reproduction  of  the 
animal,  in  which  the  two  creations — matter  and 
mind — exist  in  the  respective  germs  of  the  male  and 
the  female.  One  side  or  part  of  the  matter  creation, 
with  all  the  elements  of  life — physical  life — and  one 
side  or  part  of  the  mind  creation,  exists  in  an  imper- 
fect state  in  the  male  animal;  the  corresponding  sides 
or  parts  of  these  imperfect  creations  exist  in  the 


304 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


female  animal.  Observation  teaches  that  by  uniting 
the  imperfect  sides  or  parts  of  these  creations  in  the 
female,  results  in  their  being  perfected  and  repro- 
duced in  the  young  animal.  This  indicates  that  each 
of  these  creations  maintains  its  individuality  in  their 
respective  germs  of  the  male  and  the  female  animal, 
and  that  each  side  or  part  of  these  imperfect  crea- 
tions acts  as  a magnet,  which  attracts  its  correspond- 
ing side  or  part  in  the  opposite  sex.  Hence,  when 
sexual  union  occurs,  each  side  or  part  of  these  two 
creations — matter  and  mind — are  united  and  per- 
fected in  the  female,  conception  and  birth  results, 
and  the  combination  of  matter  and  mind  as  they  ex- 
isted in  the  parents  is  reproduced  in  the  offspring. 

But  if,  as  frequently  occurs,  from  various  causes, 
these  imperfect  matter  and  mind  creations,  as  they 
exist  in  the  respective  germs  of  the  male  and  female 
animal,  are  not  united  and  perfected  in  the  female, 
these  vital  elements  are  wasted,  conception  does  not 
result,  and  the  reproduction  of  these  two  creations 
in  a young  animal  is  not  accomplished.  The  strength 
of  our  argument  is  demonstrated  by  the  actions  of 
our  domestic  fowls;  it  frequently  occurs  that  the  fe- 
male fowl,  when  not  associated  with  the  male  fowl, 
will  lay  eggs;  but  such  eggs  will  not  “hatch.”  This 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  but  one  side  or  part — the  fe- 
male side  or  part  of  the  two  creations,  matter  and 
mind,  as  they  existed  in  the  germ  of  the  female — was 
represented  in  the  egg;  their  corresponding  side  or 
part  in  the  male,  which  was  necessary  to  perfect  the 
two  creations  in  the  female,  were  not  present;  and 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


305 


as  a result  the  effort  of  the  female  to  reproduce 
these  two  creations  in  a young  animal,  independ- 
ently of  the  male,  was  abortive. 

The  same  law  which  governs  the  reproduction 
of  the  matter  creation  in  the  plant,  and  the  repro- 
duction of  the  matter  and  the  mind  creations  in  the 
animal,  must  also  govern  the  reproduction  of  the 
three  creations — matter,  mind,  and  soul — as  they  ex- 
ist in  the  respective  germs  of  the  male  and  female 
man.  One  side  or  part  of  the  matter  creation  with 
all  the  elements  of  physical  life;  and  one  side  or  part 
of  the  mind  creation;  and  one  side  or  part  of  the  soul 
creation  with  its  peculiar  characteristic — immortal 
life — exists  in  an  imperfect  state  in  the  germ  of  the 
male  man;  the  corresponding  sides  or  parts  of  these 
imperfect  creations  exist  in  the  germ  of  the  female 
man.  By  the  union  of  these  imperfect  creations  in  the 
female  man,  they  are  perfected  and  reproduced  in  the 
offspring.  This  indicates  that  each  of  these  imperfect 
creations  maintains  its  individuality  in  the  respective 
germs  of  the  male  and  the  female  man;  and  that 
each  of  these  imperfect  creations  acts  as  a magnet, 
which  attracts  its  corresponding  side  or  part  in  the 
opposite  sex.  When  sexual  union  occurs,  each  side 
or  part  of  these  imperfect  creations  unites  with  its 
corresponding  side  or  part  in  the  female,  and  is  thus 
perfected;  conception  results,  and  the  three  creations 
— matter,  mind,  and  soul — are  reproduced  in  the  off- 
spring. Thus,  it  is  shown  that  the  reproduction  of 
the  immortal  soul,  in  combination  with  matter  and 
with  mind  as  it  exists  in  man,  is  as  natural  and  as 


306 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


simple  a process  as  the  reproduction  of  the  animal 
or  the  plant;  and  that  it  is  governed  by  the  same 
laws. 

The  most  positive  evidence  that  Adam  was  con- 
scious of  the  fact  that  he  was  not  a mere  combina- 
tion of  matter  and  mind;  that  he  was  not  an  animal; 
that  he  was  not  akin  to  the  animals;  but  that  he  was 
a distinct  creation;  that  he  possessed  an  immortal 
soul,  itself  a part  of  the  substance  of  God;  that  his 
soul  formed  the  bond  of  kinship  between  himself 
and  God;  that  when  the  hour  of  his  physical  dis- 
solution arrived  his  soul  would  take  its  flight  from 
the  scenes  of  earth  to  an  endless  existence  in  eter- 
nity; his  knowledge  of  all  these  facts  is  shown  by 
his  explanation  of  why  he  called  the  name  of  his 
wife  Eve:  “Because  she  is  the  mother  of  all  liv- 

ing.” (Gen.  iii,  20) . 

All  the  facts  indicate  that  this  explanation  was 
made  before  Eve  had  conceived  by  Adam,  and  con- 
sequently before  she  became  a mother.  But  para- 
doxical as  it  may  appear,  his  explanation  is  sustained 
by  the  scriptures,  which  teach  us  that  the  animal 
possesses  mere  physical  or  mortal  life;  while  in 
addition  to  his  physical  life,  man  possesses  immortal 
life.  This  being  true,  it  follows  that,  from  the 
moment  of  its  conception,  the  offspring  of  the 
female  animal  begins  to  die,  in  the  sense  that  each 
moment  of  its  existence  brings  it  nearer  to  the  time 
of  its  final  dissolution.  Hence,  in  this  sense,  the 
female  animals  may  with  propriety  be  regarded  as 
the  mothers  of  a1!  dying.  But  this  does  not  apply 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


307 


to  women.  Adam  was  fully  aware  that  in  the  ova- 
ries of  Eve  there  was  one  side  or  part  of  the  three 
creations, — matter,  mind,  and  soul;  that  the  corres- 
ponding sides  or  parts  of  these  creations  existed  in 
himself;  and  that  when  these  imperfect  sides  or 
parts  were  united  and  perfected  in  Eve,  she  would 
give  birth  to  an  immortal  being. 

Thus  it  is  shown:  (1)  That  by  incorporating 

“a  living  soul” — itself  a part  of  the  substance  of 
God — with  Adam’s  physical  and  mental  organisms, 
God  established  between  Himself  and  Adam  the  close 
relationship  of  father  and  son.  (2)  That  this  rela- 
tionship is  transmitable  through  pure  Adamic  chan- 
nals  to  the  remotest  descendants  of  Adam.  Hence, 
every  pure-blooded  descendant  of  Adam  and  Eve  are 
sons  or  daughters  of  God,  as  the  case  may  be.  Fur- 
ther evidence  of  this  is  furnished  by  the  Virgin  Mary 
and  her  conception  of  the  Saviour.  Immediately 
before  the  occurrence  of  this  great  event,  one  side  or 
part — the  female  side  or  part — of  the  matter,  mind, 
and  soul  creations  reposed  in  the  womb  of  Mary;  or- 
dinarily, these  imperfect  sides  or  parts  of  these  three 
creations  would  have  been  perfected  by  being  united 
through  sexual  contact  with  their  corresponding  male 
sides  or  parts.  But  God  willed  it  otherwise;  He  de- 
sired a “ begotten  son,”  who,  as  His  heir  and  repre- 
sentative, would  act  as  mediator  between  God  and 
man,  and  re-establish  between  them  the  cordial  rela- 
tions which  had  so  long  been  interrupted.  In  the 
execution  of  this  design,  God,  not  by  the  sexual  act, 
but  simply  by  the  exercise  of  His  creative  power,  sup- 


308 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


plied  and  united  the  imperfect  female  sides  or  parts 
of  the  three  creations  in  the  womb  of  Mary,  with 
their  corresponding  male  sides  or  parts;  Mary  con- 
ceived, and  in  due  process  of  time,  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Founder  of  Christianity  and  the  Redeemer  of  the 
World,  was  born. 

As  above  shown,  the  Bible  teaches  that  there  are 
three  Creations — matter,  mind,  and  soul;  and  that 
the  soul  creation  is  as  distinct  from  mind,  as  mind 
is  distinct  from  matter.  We  have  also  shown  that 
Adam  fully  realized  this,  and  that  his  possession  of 
a Soul,  which  is  peculiar  to  man,  pre-eminently  dis- 
tinguishes man  from  the  animal.  This  essential 
knowledge  which  God  bestowed  upon  Adam  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Adamic  family  in  all  ages,  doubtless 
occupied  as  conspicuous  a place  in  Adam’s  book  as 
it  does  in  our  Bible.  But,  when  Adam’s  book  was 
lost  in  the  ages  following  the  Deluge,  the  knowledge 
of  these  three  elements  was  handed  down  by  tradi- 
tion and  thus  became  more  or  less  garbled  and  con- 
fused. However,  we  find  traces  of  them  in  the  lit- 
erature of  the  civilized  nations  of  antiquity  of  whose 
cosmogonies  we  have  any  knowledge.  But,  finally, 
God  made  a second  revelation  of  the  existence  of 
these  creations  to  Moses,  who  transmitted  them  to 
the  Jews  in  his  account  of  the  creation.  The  Jews, 
and  doubtless  many  Gentiles,  knew  of  these  three 
creations  and  the  distinctions  between  them  until 
long  after  the  crucifixion;  besides,  our  Saviour  rec- 
ognized the  distinctions  between  these  three  crea- 
tions in  His  command:  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


309 


thy  God  with  all  thy  heart;  (physical  organ,  com- 
posed of  matter) , and  with  all  thy  soul  (the  immortal 
organ),  and  with  all  thy  mind,”  (the  mental  organ) . 

But  during  the  “ Dark  Ages  ” the  existence  of 
these  three  creations  and  the  distinctions  between 
them,  like  the  distinctions  between  the  “ cattle  ” or 
quadrupeds,  and  the  “ beasts”  or  bipeds  (apes),  were 
lost.  When  this  sad  event  occured  the  mind  crea- 
tion and  the  soul  creation  came  to  be  regarded  as 
identical,  and  the  terms  “mind  or  soul,”  were 
employed  to  describe  the  mental  organism.  At  the 
same  time  there  were  many  persons  who  adhered  to 
the  belief  of  their  ancestors  that  man  is  immortal; 
and  they  insisted  upon  making  a distinction  between 
man  and  the  animals;  but  with  the  Bible  distinc- 
tions upon  this  subject  lost,  and  with  mind  and  soul 
blended  and  confused,  as  the  “ mind  or  soul,”  they, 
in  their  ignorance,  were  led  to  believe  that  mind  is 
peculiar  to  man;  and  that  the  animals  possessed 
mere  instinct.  This  great  error  which  had  its  origin 
in  the  “Dark  Ages”  of  ignorance,  superstition, 
and  crime,  has  survived  to  our  day,  and  is  now 
universally  entertained  by  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile, 
the  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  alike;  and  thus  prac- 
tically eliminates  the  soul  creation  from  modern 
theology.  The  leading  authorities  of  the  age  make 
no  distinction  between  mind  and  soul.  As  evidence 
of  this,  we  quote  Professor  Robert  Young  in  his 
“ Analytical  Concordance  of  the  Bible,”  in  which  he 
proposes  to  give  “every  word  in  alphabetical  order, 
arranged  under  its  Hebrew  or  Greek  original,  with 


310 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  literal  meaning  of  each,  and  its  pronunciation.” 
Professor  Young  defines  the  term  “ Mind  ” as 
follows : 

“ Mind— 

1.  Imagination,  frame,  formation,  yetur. 

2.  Heart,  leb. 

4.  Soul,  breath,  nephesh. 

5.  Mouth,  peh. 

6.  Spirit,  ruach” 

— ( Analytical  Concordance,  pp.  661,  662). 

Sir  William  Smith,  another  leading  authority, 
makes  no  distinction  between  mind  and  soul.  (See 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible) . The  misconception  as  to 
the  identity  of  mind  and  soul  which  universally  pre- 
vails among  both  Jew  and  Gentile  theologians,  is 
clearly  shown  by  the  utterances  of  Dr.  Robert  T. 
Young,  a prominent  educator  of  Nashville,  Tenn., 
who,  in  his  work,  “ The  Negro,  a Reply  to  ‘ Ariel 
pp.  28,  29,  says: 

“ The  whole  world  is  made  up  of  mind  or  soul 
and  matter.  The  term  matter  is  a name  which  we 
apply  to  a certain  combination  or  properties,  or  to 
certain  substances  which  are  solid,  extended  and 
divisible,  and  which  are  known  to  us  only  by  these 
properties.  The  term  mind,  in  the  same  manner, 
is  a name  which  we  apply  to  a certain  combina- 
tion of  functions,  or  to  a certain  power  which  we 
feel  within  us,  and  is  known  to  us  onty  by  these 
functions.  Matter  we  know  only  by  our  senses. 
Mind  or  soul  by  our  consciousness.  (Dr.  Aber- 
combie) 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


311 


This  blending  and  confusing  of  the  mind  and 
soul  creations  has  the  following  disastrous  results: 

1.  It  is  at  once  an  open,  gratuitous  insult  to 
God,  and  the  most  positive,  direct  assault  upon  His 
plan  of  creation,  since  it  proposes  to  throw  open  the 
portals  of  eternity  alike  to  man  and  the  animals. 

2.  It  proposes  to  eliminate  the  soul  creation 
from  the  material  universe;  and  thus  destroy  the 
bond  of  kinship  between  God  and  man;  deprives 
man  of  any  special  claim  to  immortality,  and  de- 
thrones him  from  his  lofty  position  as  a distinct 
creation. 

3.  It  degrades  man  to  the  base  level  of  the 
brute;  for,  as  has  been  shown,  mind  is  common  to 
man  and  the  animals,  the  difference  between  them 
in  this  respect  being  merely  one  of  degree , not  of 
kind.  Hence,  if  the  mind  and  soul  are  identical,  why 
should  not  the  “mind  or  soul”  of  the  animal  be  as 
immortal  as  the  “mind  and  soul”  of  man?  Thus  it 
is  plain  that  man’s  claim  to  immortality  is  abso- 
lutely ridiculous  when  based  on  nothing  more  than 
the  superiority  of  his  mind  over  that  of  the  animal. 

The  teachings  of  the  modern  clergy,  both  Jew 
and  Gentile,  that  mind  and  soul  are  identical,  and 
the  employment  of  the  terms  “mind  or  soul”  to  de- 
scribe the  mental  organ,  though  in  conflict  with  the 
scriptures,  is  in  absolute  harmony  with  the  teach- 
ings of  modern  materialism,  as  shown  by  the  utter- 
ances of  Professor  Haeckel,  the  leading  materialist 
of  the  age,  who  says: 

“ With  regard  to  the  human  ‘ soul  organ,’  the 


312 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


brain,  the  application  of  the  fundamental  law  of  bi- 
ogeny  has  been  firmly  established  by  the  careful 
empiric  observations.  The  same  may  be  said  of  its 
functions,  the  'activity  of  the  soul.’  For  the  devel- 
opment of  a function  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the 
gradual  development  of  every  organ.  The  morpho- 
logical differentiation  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
brain  corresponds  with  its  physiological  separation 
or  ‘ division  of  labor.’  Hence,  what  is  commonly 
termed  the  'soul’  or  ' mind’  of  man,  (consciousness 
included)  is  merely  the  sum  total  of  the  activities  of 
a large  number  of  nerve  cells,  of  which  the  brain  is 
composed.  Where  the  normal  arrangement  and 
function  of  these  latter  does  not  exist,  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  conceive  of  a healthy  ' soul.’  This  idea  which 
is  one  of  the  most  important  principles  of  our  mod- 
ern exact  physiology,  is  certainly  not  compatible 
with  the  wide-spread  belief  in  the  ‘ personal  immor- 
tality of  man.’  However,  this  dualistic  dogma,  vThich 
is  met  with  among  the  lower  races  of  men  in  the 
greatest  variety  of  forms,  is  no  longer  tenable.  The 
wonderful  advances  made  in  experimental  physiol- 
ogy and  psychiatry,  as  well  as  in  comparative  pys- 
chology  and  ontogeny,  have,  during  the  last  half- 
century,  removed  stone  after  stone  from  the  mighty 
sub-structure  upon  which  this  dogma  stood  so  ap- 
parently unassailable.  However,  it  lost  its  hold  by 
the  grand  biological  discoveries  of  the  last  two  dec- 
ades, above  all  by  the  complete  uplifting  of  the  veil 
which  had  hitherto  concealed  the  mystery  of  fertili- 
zation. We  now  know  for  certain,  and  can  demon- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


313 


strate  the  fact  at  any  moment  under  the  microscope, 
that  the  wonderful  process  of  fertilization  is  nothing 
more  than  the  commingling  of  two  different  cells,  the 
copulation  of  their  kernals.  In  this  process  the  ker- 
nal  of  the  male  sperm-cell  transmits  the  individual 
peculiarities  of  the  father,  the  female  egg-cell  trans- 
mits those  of  the  mother;  the  inheritance  from  both 
parents  is  determined  by  the  commingling  of  both 
kernals,  and  with  it  likewise  begins  the  existence  of 
the  new  individual,  the  child.  It  is  against  all  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  this  new  individual  should  have 
an  ‘ eternal  life  ’ without  end,  when  we  can  minutely 
determine  the  finite  beginning  of  its  existence  by 
direct  observation.”  ( History  of  Creation , pp.  493, 
494,  495) . 

Thus,  as  above  shown,  the  modern  clergy,  both 
Jew  and  Gentile,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  are  in 
open  conflict  with  the  Bible  in  their  efforts  to  blend 
and  confuse  mind  and  soul,  they  are  in  absolute 
harmony  with  the  teachings  of  atheism.  If  further 
evidence  was  required  to  show  the  broad  distinction 
which  exists  between  mind  and  soul,  we  might, 
among  other  scriptural  writers,  quote  Peter,  who 
says  of  the  antediluvians:  “Which  some  time  were 
disobedient,  when  once  the  long  suffering  of  God 
waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a pre- 
paring, wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls  were  saved 
by  water.”  ( 1 Peter , iii,  20) . 

There  were  as  many  minds  “saved”  in  the  ark 
as  there  were  men,  women,  and  animals,  but  there 


314 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


were  only  eight  souls  “ saved;  ” these  were  Noah  and 
his  wife,  and  his  three  sons  and  their  wives. 

All  the  facts  relative  to  the  creation  of  man 
justifies  us  in  asserting  that  Adam,  fresh  from  the 
hands  of  his  Creator,  bearing  the  “image  of  God,” 
presented  in  his  physical,  mental,  and  soul  organ- 
isms, the  grandest  specimen  of  manhood  the  world 
has  ever  known;  and  that  Eve,  fresh  from  the  hands 
of  her  Creator,  with  the  “image  of  God”  stamped 
upon  her  fair  brow,  presented  in  her  physical,  men- 
tal, and  soul  organisms,  the  loveliest  specimen  of 
womanhood,  that  ever  graced  the  earth. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


The  Theory  of  Descent. 

Having  reviewed  the  teachings  of  the  scriptural 
school  of  Divine  Creation,  as  revealed  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  inspired  authors,  it  is  only  fair  to  our 
readers  to  present  the  teachings  of  the  atheistic 
school  of  Natural  Development,  as  set  forth  in  the 
language  of  its  leading  advocates.  As  shown  in  a 
previous  chapter  of  this  work,  the  general  theory  of 
development  is,  as  it  were,  divided  into  two  parts: 
the  first  part  treats  of  the  origin  of  the  earth  and  the 
celestial  bodies ; and  materialists  generally  accept  the 
Nebular  Theory  as  the  correct  solution  of  this  prob- 
lem. The  other  part  of  the  theory  of  development 
treats  of  the  introduction  of  plant  and  animal  life; 
and  the  origin  of  plants,  animals  and  man.  This  part 
of  the  theory  is  known  as  “The  Theory  of  Descent.” 
The  advocates  of  this  theory  assume  that  plant  and 
animal  life  is  the  result  of  “ spontaneous  generation.” 
Thus,  the  “Nebular  Hypothesis”  and  “The  Theory 
of  Descent,”  combine  to  form  what  is  known  as  “ The 
Theory  of  Natural  Development,”  or  “The  Theory  of 
Evolution.” 

In  discussing  the  origin  of  animal  life,  Prof. 
Haeckel  says:  “ The  most  ancient  ancestors  of  man, 
as  of  all  other  organisms,  were  living  creatures  of 


315 


316 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  simplest  kind  imaginable;  organisms  without 
organs,  like  the  still  living  monera.  They  consisted 
of  simple  homogeneous,  structureless,  and  formless 
little  lumps  of  mucous  or  albuminous  matter  (plas- 
son) , like  the  still  living  protamceba  jprimitava.  The 
form  value  of  these  most  ancient  ancestors  of  man 
was  not  even  equal  to  that  of  a cell,  but  merely  that 
of  a cytod;  for,  as  in  the  case  of  all  monera,  the 
little  lump  of  protoplasm  did  not  as  yet  possess  a 
cell-kernel.  The  first  of  these  monera  originated  in 
the  beginning  of  the  Laurentian  period  by  spontan- 
eous generation,  or  archigony,  out  of  so-called  “in- 
organic combinations;”  namely,  out  of  simple  com- 
binations of  carbon,  oxygen,  hydrogen,  and  nitro- 
gen.” ( History  of  Creation,  p.  380) . 

Mr.  Haeckel’s  theory  of  the  origin  of  life  bjr 
spontaneous  generation  is  in  striking  contrast  to 
that  of  Mr.  Darwin,  who  believed  that  God  created  a 
few  simple  “ forms,”  and  that  these  evolved  through 
higher  forms  to  culminate  in  man.  Mr.  Darwin 
says: 

“ There  is  a grandeur  in  this  view  of  life,  with 
its  several  powers,  having  been  originally  breathed  by 
the  Creator  into  a few  forms  or  into  one.  * * * * 

The  similar  framework  of  bones  in  the  hand  of  a 
man,  wing  of  a bat,  fin  of  a porpoise,  and  leg  of  a 
horse  * * * and  innumerable  other  such  facts, 

at  once  explain  themselves  on  the  theory  of  descent 
with  slow  and  successive  modifications.  * * * 

In  regard  to  the  members  of  each  great  kingdom, 
such  as  vertebrata,  articulata,  etc.,  we  have  distinct 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


317 


evidence  * * * that  within  each  kingdom  all 

the  members  are  descended  from  a single  'progenitor. 
* * * All  the  living  forms  of  life  are  the  lineal 

descendants  of  those  which  lived  long  before  the 
Cambrian  epoch.”  {Origin  of  Species , pp.  420,  425, 
428) . 

In  opposition  to  this,  Mr.  Haeckel  says:  “But 

a truly  natural  and  consistent  view  of  organisms  can 
assume  no  supernatural  act  of  creation  for  even  these 
simplest  original  forms,  but  only  a coming  into  exist- 
ence by  spontaneous  generation.  From  Darwin’s 
view  of  the  nature  of  species  we  arrive,  therefore,  at 
the  natural  theory  of  development.  * * * The 

fundamental  idea  which  must  necessarily  lie  at  the 
bottom  of  all  natural  theories  of  development  is  that 
of  a gradual  development  of  all  (even  the  most  per- 
fect) organisms  out  of  a single  or  out  of  a very  few 
quite  simple  and  quite  imperfect  original  beings 
which  came  into  existence  not  by  supernatural  creation 
but  by  spontaneous  generation,  or  archigony,  out  of  in- 
organic matter .”  {Ibid,  Vol.  I,  pp.  48,  75). 

In  a more  detailed  description  of  the  monera, 
Mr.  Heackel  says:  “Formerly,  when  the  doctrine 

of  spontaneons  generation  was  advocated,  it  failed 
at  once  to  obtain  adherents  on  account  of  the  com- 
posite structure  of  the  simplest  organisms  then 
known.  It  is  only  since  we  have  discovered  the 
exceedingly  important  monera,  only  since  we  have 
become  acquainted  in  them  with  organisms  not  in 
any  way  built  up  of  distinct  organs,  but  which 
consist  solely  of  a single  chemical  combination,  and 


318 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


yet  grow,  nourish  and  propagate  themselves,  that 
this  great  difficulty  has  been  removed,  and  the  hypo- 
theses of  spontaneous  generation  has  gained  a degree 
of  probability  which  entitles  it  to  fill  up  the  gap 
existing  between  Kaut’s  cosmogony  and  La  Mark’s 
Theory  of  Descent. 

“ Only  such  homogeneous  organisms  as  are  yet 
not  differentiated,  and  are  similar  to  inorganic  crys- 
tals in  being  homogeneously  composed  of  one  single 
substance,  could  arise  by  spontaneous  generation, 
and  could  become  the  primaeval  parent  of  all  other 
organisms.”  (Ibid,  pp.  418,  419) . 

In  contradiction  of  Mr.  Haeckel,  Mr.  Darwin 
says:  “We  cannot  fathom  the  marvellous  complexity 
of  an  organic  being;  but  on  the  hypothesis  here 
advanced  this  complexity  is  much  increased.  Each 
living  creature  (Mr.  Haeckel  recognizes  the  monera, 
as  the  living  creature)  must  be  looked  upon  as  a 
microcosm — a little  universe — formed  of  a host  of 
self-propagating  organisms,  inconceivabty  minute, 
and  as  numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven .”  ( Animals 

and  Plants,  Vol.  II,  p.  483). 

This  shows  that  the  monera  is  not  a “ structure- 
less,” “homogeneous,”  “lump  of  albumen,”  “com- 
posed of  one  single  substance,”  and  “ not  in  any  way 
built  up  of  distinct  organs,  but  which  consists  solely 
of  a single  chemical  combination.”  Mr.  Darwin,  a 
most  competent  judge,  says  it  is  nothing  of  the  kind; 
but  that  “ each  living  creature  must  be  looked  at  as 
a microcosm — a little  universe — formed  of  a host  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


319 


self-propagating  organisms,  inconceivably  minute, 
and  as  numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven .” 

Professor  Huxley  adds  his  testimony  to  that  of 
Mr. Darwin  as  follows:  “No  living  being  (the  monera 
is  a ‘living  being’)  is  throughout  of  homogeneous 
substance;  the  most  of  them  are  highly  complex, 
from  the  union  of  many  dissimilar  parts.  The  state- 
ment of  this  structure  constitutes  anatomy,  and  if  it 
is  carried  down  to  the  minutest  microscopic  elements 
of  the  organism  it  is  called  histology.”  ( Elementary 
Physiology,  p.  15). 

Thus,  according  to  these  great  naturalists,  the 
monera  is  not  a “formless,”  “homogeneous,”  “sim- 
ple lump  of  albumen,”  composed  of  “ a single  chem- 
ical combination.”  Mr.  Darwin  says:  “ Each  living 
creature  must  be  looked  at  as  a microcosm — a little 
universe — formed  of  a host  of  self-propagating  organ- 
isms, inconceivably  minute,  and  as  numerous  as  the 
stars  of  heaven .”  Huxley  says:  “No  living  being  is 
throughout  of  homogeneous  substance;  the  most  of 
them  are  highly  complex,  from  the  union  of  many  dis- 
similar parts.” 

Add  to  the  statements  of  these  naturalists  Mr. 
Haeckel’s  own  admission,  and  not  a vestige  of  his 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation  is  left.  He  says: 
“ Only  such  homogenous  organisms  as  are  yet  not  dif- 
ferentiated and  are  similar  to  the  organic  crystals,  in 
being  homogeneously  composed  of  one  single  substance, 
could  arise  by  spontaneous  generation.”  This  being- 
true,  it  follows  that,  since  “no  living  being  is 
throughout  of  homogeneous  substance;”  but  that 


320 


THE  TEMPTEK  OE  EYE. 


11  each  living  creature  is  a microcosm — a little  universe  ” 
in  itself — formed  of  a host  of  self -propagating  organ- 
isms, Mr.  Haeckel’s  theory  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion, based  upon  the  monera,  falls  still-born  from 
the  imagination  of  its  author. 

Mr.  Haeckel  further  says:  “When  the  monera 

moves  itself,  there  are  formed  on  the  upper  surface 
of  the  little  mucous  globule,  shapeless,  finger-like 
processes,  or  very  fine  radiated  threads;  these  are 
the  so-called  false  feet,  or  pseudopodia.  The  false 
feet  are  simple,  direct  continuations  of  the  shape- 
less albuminous  mass,  of  which  the  whole  body  con- 
sists. We  are  unable  to  perceive  different  parts  in 
it,  and  we  can  give  a direct  proof  of  the  absolute 
simplicity  of  the  semi-fluid  mass  of  albumen,  for, 
with  the  aid  of  the  microscope,  we  can  follow  the 
moneron  as  it  takes  in  its  nourishment.  When 
small  particles  suited  for  its  nourishment — for  in- 
stance, small  particles  of  decayed  organic  bodies  or 
microscopic  plants  and  infusoria — accidently  come 
in  contact  with  the  moneron,  they  remain  hanging 
to  the  sticky  semi-fluid  globule  of  mucus,  and  here 
create  an  irritation,  which  is  followed  by  a strong 
afflux  of  the  mucus  substance;  and,  in  consequence, 
they  become  finally  completely  enclosed  by  it,  or  are 
drawn  into  the  body  of  the  moneron  by  displace- 
ment of  the  several  albuminous  particles,  and  are 
there  digested,  being  absorbed  by  simple  diffusion 
( endosmosis ) . 

Thus,  in  describing  the  habits  of  the  monera, 
Mr.  Haeckel  tells  us  that  it  moves  from  place  to 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


321 


place  with  the  aid  of  “finger-like  processes’’ — “so- 
called  false  feet” — that  it  takes  into  its  body  “ small 
particles  of  decayed  organic  bodies,”  which  “are 
there  digested.”  These  things  could  only  be  accom- 
plished with  the  aid  of  organs  which  were  designed 
for  the  purposes  which  they  serve.  The  “ finger-like 
processes  ” — the  so-called  “ false  feet,”  the  digestive 
apparatus,  etc.,  are  all  so  many  organs.  Yet,  at  the 
outset,  Mr.  Haeckel  describes  the  monera  as  “ organ- 
isms without  organs .” 

In  describing  the  propagation  of  monera,  Mr. 
Haeckel  says:  “All  monera  propagate  themselves 

only  in  a non-sexual  manner  by  monogony.  * * * 
When  such  a little  globule,  for  example,  a prota- 
mceba  or  a protogenes,  has  attained  a certain  size  by 
the  assimilation  of  foreign  albuminous  matter,  it  falls 
into  two  pieces;  a pinching-in  takes  place,  contract- 
ing the  middle  of  the  globule  on  all  sides,  and  finally 
leads  to  the  separation  of  the  two  halves.  Each  half 
thus  becomes  rounded  off,  and  now  appears  as  an 
independent  individual,  which  commences  anew  the 
simple  course  of  vital  phenomena  of  nutrition  and 
propagation.”  (Ibid,  p.  191). 

Thus  the  monera  propagates  itself  by  self-divi- 
sion. Each  half  is  the  same  individual  duplicated;  by 
this  process  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  inheritance; 
for  inheritance  implies  parent  and  offspring.  This 
being  true,  there  can  be  no  “ inherited  ” variations 
to  transmit  to  descendants.  Hence,  the  most  remote 
descendants  of  the  first  monera  would  simply  be  an 
exact  duplicate  of  the  original.  There  could  be  no 


322 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


variations.  This  places  the  monera  “ beyond  the  in- 
fluence of  ‘natural  selection.’”  Mr.  Darwin  says: 
“ Unless  favorable  variations  be  inherited  by  some  at 
least  of  the  offspring,  nothing  can  he  affected  by  nat- 
ural selection .” 

“ Natural  selection  acts  only  by  the  preservation 
and  accumulation  of  small  inherited  modifications.” 
Any  variation  which  is  not  inherited  is  unim- 
portant for  us.”  ( Origin  of  Species,  pp.  9,  75,  80). 

Thus  it  is  shown  that  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  of 
“ natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest,”  of 
which  Mr.  Haeckel  is  so  ardent  an  advocate,  does  not 
apply  to  the  monera;  for,  where  there  is  no  inherited 
qualities — no  variations — there  can  be  no  “ natural 
selection no  “ survival  of  the  fittest;”  and  conse- 
quently no  evolution  from  this  simple  creature  to 
higher  organisms. 

And  again,  according  to  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  of 
“ natural  selection  or  survival  of  the  fittest,”  if  the 
descendants  of  the  most  ancient  monera  had  been 
modified  or  improved,  the  improved  varieties  would 
have  supplanted  the  parent  forms,  and  the  latter 
would  have  become  extinct. 

Mr.  Darwin  says:  “New  varieties  continually 

take  the  place  of  and  supplant  the  parent  forms.” 

“New  and  improved  varieties  will  inevitably  sup- 
plant and  exterminate  the  older” 

“ In  all  cases  the  new  and  unimproved  forms  of 
life  tend  to  supplant  the  old  and  unimproved  forms.” 
( Origin  of  Species , pp.  266,  292,  413). 

The  very  fact  that  the  monera  of  to-day  is  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


323 


exact  duplicate  of  the  monera  of  ages  ago,  is  proof 
positive  that  no  new  and  improved  varieties  have 
been  developed  in  all  the  ages  that  have  passed; 
for,  had  there  been,  the  improved  varieties,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory,  would  long  since 
have  supplanted  and  exterminated  the  parent  forms  ; 
but  such  was  not  the  case;  the  monera  is  perhaps 
to-day  the  most  numerous  of  all  living  beings, 
covering  almost  the  entire  bottom  of  the  ocean. 
From  remote  ages  this  “simplest  of  all  organisms” 
has  gone  on  propagating  itself  by  self-division,  each 
half  duplicating  the  original,  and  utterly  incapable 
of  the  least  variation;  as  shown  by  the  fact  that,  not 
a single  specimen  of  a modified  or  improved  variety, 
either  alive  or  in  a fossil  state,  has  ever  been  dis- 
covered. Thus  Mr.  Haeckle’s  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation  based  on  the  monera,  when  viewed  even 
in  the  light  of  “natural  selection  or  survival  of  the 
fittest,”  falls  to  the  ground  on  the  very  threshhold 
of  its  existence. 

The  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  is  based 
upon  a false  assumption;  the  assumption  that  the 
distinction  between  inorganic  matter,  and  organic  life , 
is  found  in  the  greater  or  less  simplicity  of  the  organ- 
isms of  the  latter.  This  is  a great  mistake;  there  is 
a vast  difference  between  the  simple  structure  of  the 
monera  and  the  complex  structure  of  the  man;  but 
there  is  no  difference  between  the  life — physical  life 
— which  animates  and  perfects  the  simple  organism 
of  the  monera,  and  the  physical  life  which  animates 
and  perfects  the  complex  organism  of  the  man. 


324 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Life — physical  life — is  identical,  whether  it  exists 
in  the  most  simple  or  the  most  complex  organ- 
ism. Hence,  it  is  their  possession  of  life — phys- 
ical life — which  alike  distinguishes  the  monera  and 
man  from  inorganic  matter,  and  not  the  greater  or 
less  simplicity  of  the  organisms  of  the  latter.  Their 
failure  to  note  these  facts  has  led  the  advocates  of 
spontaneous  generation  to  suppose  that  between  in- 
organic matter  and  the  simple  organism  of  the  mon- 
era, there  is  a gap  so  small  that,  in  the  remote  past, 
under  favorable  conditions,  spontaneous  generation 
might  have  spanned  it.  From  this  false  premise 
they  argue  that,  from  the  complex  organism  of  man, 
down  through  the  animal  kingdom,  there  is  an  ever- 
increasing  simplicity  of  organism — a gradually  shad- 
ing down,  as  it  were,  to  reach  the  monera,  which,  in 
the  extreme  simplicity  of  its  organism,  is  but  little 
removed  from  inorganic  matter.  But,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  there  stands  between  inorganic  matter  and 
organic  life,  a deep,  wide,  and  impassable  gulf, 
which  spontaneous  generation  could  never  span. 
On  one  side  of  this  great  gulf  stands  inorganic 
matter;  on  its  opposite,  and  far  distant  shore,  stands 
organic  life,  in  all  the  simplicity  and  complexity 
of  its  organisms.  Hence,  the  simple  organism 
of  the  monera  is  as  far  removed  from  inorganic 
matter  as  is  the  complex  organism  of  man.  Then 
add  to  this  the  fact  that  even  the  simplest  animal 
organism  possesses  mind — a creation  distinct  from 
inorganic  matter,  and  the  great  gulf  which  separates 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


325 


inorganic  matter  from  organic  life,  is  immeasurably 
increased. 

Mr.  Haeckel’s  opinion  of  the  simple  organism 
of  the  monera  is  in  striking  contrast  to  that  of  Mr. 
Darwin,  who  says:  “The  most  humble  organism  is 

something  much  higher  than  the  inorganic  dust  under 
our  feet;  and  no  one  with  an  unbiased  mind  can 
study  any  living  creature,  however  humble,  without  be- 
ing struck  with  enthusiasm  at  its  marvelous  structure 
and  properties.”  ( Descent  of  Man,  p.  165). 

How  any  rational  man  can  entertain  the  idea 
that  inorganic  matter,  which  is  destitute  of  intelli- 
gence, or  any  ability  to  plan  and  construct,  could 
possibly  devise  and  form  the  “marvelous  structure” 
of  an  animal  organism,  is  beyond  our  comprehen- 
sion; and  then,  as  if  to  make  the  absurdity  more  ab- 
surd, to  suppose  that  inorganic  matter,  which  is 
never  associated  with  mind,  transferred  mind  to  the 
animal  organism  it  had  so  miraculously  brought  into 
existence! 

Mr.  Darwin,  the  great  high  priest  of  evolution, 
admits  that  evolution  is  incompetent  to  explain  the 
origin  of  either  mind  or  life.  He  says:  “In  what 
manner  the  mental  powers  were  first  developed  in 
the  lowest  organisms  is  as  hopeless  an  inquiry  as 
how  life  itself  first  originated.  These  are  problems 
for  the  distant  future,  if  they  are  ever  to  be  solved 
by  man.”  (Descent  of  M> an,  p.  66) . 

Mr.  Haeckel  admits  that  not  a single  case  of 
spontaneous  generation  has  ever  been  observed. 
He  says:  “The  origin  of  the  first  monera  by  spoil- 


326 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


taneous  generation  appears  to  us  as  a simple  and 
necessary  event  in  the  process  of  the  development 
of  the  earth.  We  admit  that  this  process,  as  long  as 
it  is  not  directly  observed  or  repeated  by  experi- 
ment, remains  a pure  hypothesis.  But  I must 
again  say  that  this  hypothesis  is  indispensable  for 
the  consistent  completion  of  the  non-miraculous 
history  of  creation,  that  it  has  absolutely  nothing 
forced  or  miraculous  about  it,  and  that  certainly  it 
can  never  be  disproved.”  ( History  of  Creation,  Vol. 
I,  p.  422). 

In  the  face  of  the  facts  above  set  forth,  Mr. 
Haeckel’s  sweeping  claim  that  the  monera  is  “the 
most  ancient  ancestor  of  man,  as  of  all  other  organ- 
isms,” is  shown  to  be  absolutely  ridiculous.  It 
should  be  unnecessary  to  state  that  this  atheistic 
theory,  which  denies  the  existence  of  a personal 
Creator,  and  proposes  to  establish  a “blood  relation- 
ship ” extending  throughout  the  animal  kingdom 
from  the  monera  to  man,  is  opposed  to  every  teach- 
ing of  the  Bible.  While  we  hold  with  the  Bible  that 
the  elements  of  life — physical  life — are  inherent  in 
matter,  we  insist  that  spontaneous  generation  is 
powerless  to  combine  them  in  plants  and  animals. 
This  marvelous  result  can  only  be  accomplished 
by  a Thus  saith  the  Lord. 

Thus,  according  to  Mr.  Haeckel,  the  monera 
marks  the  first  “Ancestral  Stage”  in  man’s  progeni- 
tors; from  this  humble  beginning  he  tells  us  that 
our  “animal  ancestors,”  evolved  through  the  fish, 
and  fowl,  and  beast,  to  reach  what  he  terms  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


327 


“ Twenty-third  Ancestral  Stage,”  in  the  so-called 
anthropoids  or  man-like  apes,  the  gorilla,  chim- 
panzee, orang,  and  gibbon. 

According  to  Prof.  Haeckel,  the  “ seventeenth 
stage”  of  our  animal  ancestors  consisted  of  a family 
of  animals  to  which  he  has  given  the  name  Protam- 
nion.  This  family  of  animals  are  expected  to  fur- 
nish the  transitional  forms  through  which  the  fish 
developed  into  land  animals  on  the  one  side,  and 
fowls  on  the  other.  As  might  have  been  expected, 
zoology  knows  nothing  of  such  a family  of  animals; 
and  geological  research  has  never  discovered  the 
least  vestige  of  such  creatures.  They  never  existed. 
However,  the  necessities  of  his  theory  demand 
them,  and  to  meet  the  demand  the  evolutionist  was 
forced  to  draw  on  his  imagination.  The  necessities 
of  evolution  also  required  that  this  purely  hypothet- 
ical family  should  be  amphibians;  a branch  of  which 
developed  wings,  and  thus  became  progenitors  of  all 
the  fowls.  “A  wing  of  a bird  has  a score  or  more  of 
distinct,  ingenious,  but  co-ordinated  parts  and  de- 
vices, each  of  which  is  essential  to  make  it  useful, 
the  whole  showing  unmistakably  the  work  of  the 
highest  order  of  intellectual  skill  and  designing  cap- 
ability.”— (Hall) . The  evolutionist  expects  us  to  be- 
lieve that  this  wonderful  mechanical  structure  was 
developed  by  a branch  of  his  wingless  amphibians; 
the  development  of  wings  was,  of  course,  accom- 
plished under  Mr.  Darwin’s  law  of  natural  selection, 
or  survival  of  the  fittest;  but  the  initial  step  in  the  pro- 
duction of  a wing  must  be  made  by  the  animal  in- 


328 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


dependent  of  natural  selection;  natural  selection  can 
not  produce  an  organ  of  any  kind,  nor  ever  cause 
the  least  variation.  Mr.  Darwin  says:  “Several 

writers  have  misapprehended  or  objected  to  the  term 
natural  selection.  Some  have  even  imagined  that 
natural  selection  induces  variability,  whereas  it 
merely  implies  only  the  preservation  of  such  varia- 
tions as  arise  and  are  beneficial  to  the  being  under 
its  conditions  of  life — unless  favorable  variations  be 
inherited  by  some  at  least  of  the  offspring,  nothing 
can  be  affected  by  natural  selection .”  ( Origin  of  Spe- 

cies, pp.  63,  80). 

The  next  question  which  suggests  itself  is:  Was 
it  possible  for  wingless  amphibians  to  suddenly  de- 
velop wings?  According  to  Mr.  Darwin’s  law  of 
natural  selection,  which  Prof.  Haeckel  is  an  ar- 
dent advocate  of,  evolution  can  not  operate  by  sud- 
den leaps,  but  by  short  and  slow  steps.  “Natural 
selection  acts  only  by  taking  advantage  of  slight  suc- 
cessive variations;  she  can  never  take  a great  and 
sudden  leap,  but  must  advance  by  short  and  sure, 
though  slow  steps.”  Natural  selection  is  a slow  pro- 
cess, and  the  same  favorable  conditions  must  long 
endure  in  order  that  any  marked  effect  should  thus 
be  produced.”  ( Origin  of  Species,  pp.  97,  156). 

Thus  these  wing  less  amphibians  never  hastily  de- 
veloped wings,  since  this  would  be  a great  and  sud- 
den leap.  This  leaves  us  no  alternative  than  to  sup- 
pose that  they  developed  their  wings  by  a slow 
process  extending  through  many  successive  genera- 
tions during  a long  period  of  time.  But  here  we  are 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


329 


again  met  by  Mr.  Darwin,  who  says:  “Natural  selec- 
tion acts  exclusively  by  the  preservation  and  accumu- 
lation of  variations  which  are  beneficial .”  ( Origin 

of  Species,  p.  413) . 

Thus  it  is  plain  that  under  Mr.  Darwin’s  law  of 
natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest,  no  family  of 
wingless  animals  could  ever  develop  a wing;  a wing 
in  its  incipient  stages  would  be  of  no  use  to  the 
animal;  it  would  require  nourishment  to  sustain  and 
develop  it;  it  would  require  strength  to  transport  it; 
in  many  cases  it  would  be  in  the  animal’s  way,  and 
would  at  all  times  prove  a useless  and  burdensome 
appendage;  a mere  stub  of  a wing  could  not  under 
any  circumstances  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law 
of  natural  selection  by  being  beneficial  to  the  animal 
“under  its  conditions  of  life.”  Hence,  under  the 
operations  of  the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest , it 
would  be  destroyed.  Mr.  Darwin  frequently  states 
that  natural  selection  “acts  exclusively,”  “acts  only,” 
“acts  solely,”  in  preserving  variations  which  are 
beneficial.  He  repeatedly  says:  “This  preservation 
of  favorable  individual  differences  and  variations, 
and  the  destruction  of  those  which  are  injurious,  I 
have  called  natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the  fit- 
test.”  ( Origin  of  Species,  p.  63). 

Thus  it  is  shown  that  Prof.  Haeckel’s  wingless 
Protamnion  could'  not  have  suddenly  developed 
wings,  for  natural  selection  can  never  take  a great  and 
sudden  leap,  but  must  advance  by  slow  steps;  neither 
could  the  Protamnion  develop  wings  by  a gradual 
process,  extending  through  many  generations,  for 


330 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


the  wing>  in  its  incipient  stages — a mere  stub  — 
would  have  been  destroyed  under  the  law  of  the 
survival  of  the  fittest,  as  a harmful  and  useless  ap- 
pendage. Hence,  which  ever  horn  of  the  dilemma 
we  lay  hold  of,  the  result  is  the  same — the  wingless 
animal  can  never  develop  a wing.  Thus,  this  boast- 
ful theory  of  evolution  is  shattered  by  the  wing  of 
a bird. 

The  general  theory  of  evolution  existed  thous- 
ands of  years  before  Darwin  was  born ; yet,  in  his 
theory  of  “ natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the 
fittest,”  he  gave  to  evolution  all  the  strength  which 
it  enjoys,  but,  as  above  shown,  his  theory  gave  evo- 
lution its  death  blow,  by  making  it  impossible  for 
this  theory  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  fowls.  At 
the  same  time,  he  exposes  the  utter  worthlessness  of 
his  own  theory  of  “ natural  selection,  or  survival  of 
the  fittest;”  he  says:  “If  it  could  be  demonstrated 

that  any  complex  organ  existed,  which  could  not 
possibly  have  been  formed  by  numerous  successive 
slight  modifications,  my  theory  would  absolutely  break 
downy  ( Origin  of  Species,  p.  146). 

The  wing  of  a bird  is  certainly  a “complex 
organ,”  which,  as  has  been  shown,  could  not  possibly 
have  been  formed  by  numerous  successive  slight  modifi- 
cations. Strange  as  it  may  seem,  Mr.  Darwin  calls 
attention  to  this  fact,  and  thus  demonstrates  the 
falsity  of  his  theory.  Referring  to  the  wings  of  the 
ostrich  which  are  useless  for  purposes  of  flight,  and 
merely  aid  the  animal  in  running,  Mr.  Darwin  says: 
“As  organs  in  this  condition  would  formerly,  when 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


331 


still  less  developed,  have  been  of  even  less  use  than 
at  present,  they  cannot  formerly  have  been  produced 
through  variations  and  natural  selection , which  acts 
solely  for  the  preservation  of  useful  modifications .” 
( Origin  of  Species , p.  398). 

Thus,  by  its  author’s  own  admission,  the  theory 
of  natural  selection  absolutely  breaks  down.  Since 
the  school  of  evolution,  with  its  so-called  law  of 
natural  selection , or  survival  of  the  fittest,  can  not 
produce  a bird’s  wing,  or  even  the  wings  of  the 
tiniest  animal  that  flies,  we  have,  according  to  Mr. 
Haeckel,  no  alternative  than  to  accept  the  teaching 
of  the  scriptural  school  that  God  made  the  fowl. 
In  the  face  of  the  above  facts,  the  skeptic  should  lay 
aside  his  skepticism,  and  admit  the  existence  of  an 
intelligent  Creator  who  designed  that  wonderful 
organ,  the  bird’s  wing,  which  enables  the  animal 
possessing  it  to  overcome  the  law  of  gravitation,  and 
soar  amid  the  clouds. 

But  it  is  not  only  the  inability  to  develop  wings 
on  wingless  animals  that  the  theory  of  evolution 
breaks  down  through  the  influence  of  natural  selec- 
tion, or  survival  of  the  fittest;  it  breaks  down  at  an  in- 
finite number  of  points.  The  evolutionist  will  ad- 
mit that  the  earliest  animals  to  appear  on  the  globe 
were  the  invertebrates;  these  could  never  have  devel- 
oped into  the  vertebrates;  the  invertebrates  could 
not  have  suddenly  developed  a vertebral  column,  or 
even  a single  vertebra,  for  this  would  be  a sudden 
leap,  and  natural  selection  advances  by  slow  steps; 
neither  could  the  invertebrates  develop  a vertebral 


332 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


column  by  a slow  process,  for  the  incipient  vertebra 
would  not  be  beneficial  to  the  animal;  hence,  under 
the  operations  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest , it  would 
be  destroyed  as  a useless  and  harmful  growth — a 
mere  monstrosity.  The  same  is  true  of  the  skulless 
animals  which  were  the  first  to  make  their  appear- 
ance on  the  globe;  these  could  not  have  suddenly 
developed  skulls,  for  this  would  have  been  a sudden 
leap  which  is  utterly  opposed  to  natural  selection , 
which  advances  by  slow  steps;  neither  could  those 
ancient  skulless  animals  have  developed  skulls  by  a 
gradual  process,  for  the  incipient  skull  would  not  be 
beneficial  to  the  animal,  and  under  the  operations  of 
the  survival  of  the  fittest  would  be  destroyed  as  harm- 
ful and  useless.  The  same  is  true  of  the  finless  ani- 
mals which  were  the  earliest  forms  to  appear  on  the 
globe;  these  could  not  have  suddenly  developed  fins, 
for  natural  selection  only  advances  by  slow  steps,  saj’s 
Mr.  Darwin ; neither  could  the  finless  animal  develop 
fins  by  a gradual  process,  for  only  the  perfect  fin 
could  be  beneficial  to  the  animal;  hence,  the  incipi- 
ent fin,  being  useless  and  unfit  to  survive,  would 
have  been  destroyed  under  the  operations  of  the 
survival  of  the  fittest.  The  same  argument  applies  to 
the  legless  animals  which  preceded  the  animals  with 
legs;  take,  for  example,  the  great  amphibians  of  the 
early  geological  periods;  according  to  the  evolution- 
ists these  immense  animals  with  their  powerful  legs 
descended  from  animals  which  had  no  legs;  accord- 
ing to  Darwin’s  theory  of  natural  selection,  or  survival 
of  the  fittest,  the  legless  ancestors  of  these  gigantic 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


333 


amphibians  could  never  have  developed  legs,  either 
suddenly  or  by  a gradual  process,  for  the  reasons 
above  given.  So  it  would  have  been  with  Prof. 
Haeckel’s  imaginary  protamnion,  which  he  would 
have  us  believe  were  the  ancestors  of  our  land  quad- 
rupeds; had  this  hypothetical  family  of  amphibians 
had  a real  existence,  their  ancestors  would  have  been 
animals  with  no  legs;  they  could  not  have  suddenly 
developed  legs,  for  this  would  have  been  a sudden 
and  long  leap;  and  natural  selection  makes  no  sudden 
leaps , but  advances  by  slow  steps;  neither  could  they 
have  developed  legs  by  a gradual  process  extending 
through  many  generations,  for  the  incipient  legs 
would  not  have  been  beneficial  to  the  animal;  on  the 
contrary,  it  would  have  been  a harmful  and  useless 
appendage,  which,  under  the  operations  of  the  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest,  would  have  been  destroyed  in  its 
incipiency. 

As  has  been  shown,  the  immense  amphibians 
were  followed  by  the  comparatively  small  marsupials; 
the  former  inhabited  the  water,  and  the  latter  in- 
habited the  land;  in  their  physical  organisms,  their 
habits,  the  manner  of  their  reproduction,  etc.,  they 
presented  the  strongest  contrast  to  each  other;  the 
deep,  wide  gulf  which  separated  them  was  spanned 
by  no  intermediate  forms.  This  should  occasion  no 
surprise,  for,  according  to  St.  Paul,  the  amphibians 
belonged  to  the  flesh  of  “ fishes,”  while  the  marsu- 
pials belonged  to  the  “ flesh  of  beasts.” 

Prior  to  the  appearance  of  the  whale  family 
there  were  no  mammals;  and  it  is  plain  that  natural 


334 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


development,  acting  under  Darwin’s  theory  of  'natural 
selection  or  survival  of  the  fittest,  could  never  have 
produced  a mammal.  Only  the  perfected  mammae, 
with  its  intricate  system  of  glands,  etc.,  for  the 
secretion  of  milk,  could  be  beneficial  to  the  animal 
in  enabling  it  to  nourish  its  young;  this  could  not 
have  been  developed  suddenly,  for  natural  selection 
only  advances  by  slow  steps;  neither  could  the  mammae 
have  developed  gradually  through  many  generations, 
for  in  its  incipient  stages  it  would  not  have  been 
beneficial  to  the  animal  by  assisting  it  to  nourish  its 
young;  lienee,  under  the  operations  of  the  survival  of 
the  fittest , it  would  have  been  destroyed  as  useless 
and  harmful.* 

Mr.  Darwin,  like  all  evolutionists,  insists  that 
the  most  complex  organisms  have  developed  from 
the  most  simple,  through  the  “transmutation  of 
species,”  under  the  operations  of  “ natural  selection 
or  survival  of  the  fittest.”  If  this  were  true,  the 
stratas  of  the  earth  would  abound  with  the  fossil  re- 
mains of  transitional  forms  in  every  stage  of  devel- 
opment from  lower  to  higher  species;  but  scientific 
research  discovers  no  fossil  remains  of  such  transi- 
tional forms;  on  the  contrary,  the  geological  record 
shows  that  new  species  made  their  appearance  sud- 

*[Note — After  investigating  the  bearing  of  “ natural  selection  or 
survival  of  the  fittest  ” on  the  general  theory  of  Development,  as  above 
set  forth,  we  were  surprised  to  find  that  another  had  anticipated  us 
along  this  line,  and  had  long  since  reached  the  same  conclusions.  The 
views  of  this  brilliant  writer  are  found  in  “The  Problem  of  Human 
Life,  Here  and  Hereafter,”  published  by  Hall  & Co.,  of  New  York.  For 
a more  elaborate  discussion  of  the  subject  our  readers  are  referred  to 
the  above  work. — The  Author], 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


335 


denly.  Commenting  on  the  absence  of  any  evidence 
in  support  of  the  theory  of  “the  transmutation  of 
species,”  Prof.  Winchell  says:  “The  great  stubborn 

fact  which  every  form  of  the  theory  encounters  at 
the  very  outset  is  that,  notwithstanding  variations, 
we  are  ignorant  of  a single  instance  of  the  deriva- 
tion of  one  good  species  from  another.  The  world 
has  been  ransacked  for  an  example,  and  occasionally 
it  has  seemed  for  a time  as  if  an  instance  had  been 
found  of  the  origination  of  a genuine  species  by  so- 
called  natural  agencies;  but  we  only  give  utterance 
to  the  admissions  of  all  the  recent  advocates  of  de- 
rivative theories  when  we  announce  that  the  long- 
sought  experimentum  crucis  has  not  been  discov- 
ered.” ( Doctrine  of  Evolution , p.  54) . Mr.  Darwin 
says:  “Scarcely  any  palaeontological  discovery  is 

more  striking  than  the  fact  that  the  forms  of  life 
change  almost  simultaneously  throughout  the 
world.”  ( Origin  of  Species , p.  297).  The  above 
facts  cited  by  Winchell  and  Darwin  are  fatal  to  the 
theory  of  evolution,  and  clearly  point  to  creation  as 
the  only  explanation  of  the  origin  of  species. 

If  further  proof  of  the  utter  absurdity  of  the 
theory  of  evolution  were  required,  it  is  furnished  by 
that  remarkable  family  of  animals — the  apes.  This 
is  especially  unfortunate  for  the  evolutionist,  since 
he  claims  a blood  relationship  with  these  animals, 
and  for  whom  he  entertains  the  most  affectionate 
regard,  recognizing  them  as  the  immediate  progenitors 
of  man.  However,  every  scientist  will  admit,  and  no 
intelligent  evolutionist  will  deny  that,  at  a certain 


336 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


period  in  the  remote  past,  the  four  extremities  of  the 
higher  land  animals  were  legs  terminating  in  hoofs 
or  paws;  and  that  suddenly  there  appeared  upon  the 
earth  a distinct  and  higher  class  of  animals — the 
apes — whose  hinder  or  lower  extremities  were  legs 
terminating  in  feet,  and  whose  fore  or  upper  extrem- 
ities were  arms  terminating  in  hands.  Between  these 
two  distinct  classes,  the  one  quadrupeds,  and  the 
other  bipeds,  there  could  be  no  transitional  forms. 
Surely  even  the  fertile  imagination  of  an  evolution- 
ist should  revolt  at  the  suggestion  that  the  hoofs  or 
paws  which  terminated  the  hinder  legs  of  a certain 
class  of  quadrupeds,  suddenly  differentiated  into 
feet;  and  that  their  fore  legs  which  terminated  in 
hoofs  or  paws,  suddenly  differentiated  into  arms 
terminating  in  hands.  The  idea  [that  a quadruped 
could  ever  develop  into  a biped  is  too  absurd  for 
serious  consideration.  Hence,  every  ape  that  ever 
lived  upon  the  earth,  or  that  will  ever  live,  at  once 
furnishes  the  most  positive  proof  of  the  falsity  of 
the  theory  of  evolution,  and  the  truth  of  creation. 
While  we  have  little  hope  that  any  array  of  facts, 
however  powerful,  could  influence  the  materialistic 
evolutionist,  the  facts  above  cited  should  afford  food 
for  reflection  to  that  rapidly-increasing  class  of  theo- 
logians who  style  themselves  theistic  evolutionists 
(whatever  that  may  mean) . 

After  referring  to  the  close  blood  relationship 
between  man  and  the  so-called  anthropoids,  Mr. 
Haeckel  says:  “The  most  general  conclusions  ar- 

rived at  from  these  most  careful  comparisons  is  that 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


337 


each  one  of  the  four  man-like  apes  stand  nearer  to 
man  in  one  or  several  respects  than  the  rest,  but 
that  no  one  of  them  can  in  every  respect  be  called 
absolutely  the  most  like  man.  The  orang  stands 
nearest  to  man  in  regard  to  the  formation  of  the 
brain,  the  chimpanzee  in  important  characteristics  in 
the  formation  of  the  skull,  the  gorilla  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  feet  and  hands,  and,  lastly,  the  gib- 
bon in  the  formation  of  the  thorax.”  ( Ibid , p.  377). 

Describing  what  he  terms  the  “ Twenty-fourth 
Ancestral  Stage,”  Mr.  Haeckel  says:  “ Although  the 
preceding  stage  is  already  so  nearly  akin  to  genuine 
man  that  we  scarcely  require  to  assume  an  inter- 
mediate connecting  stage,  still  we  can  look  upon  the 
speechless  primeval  man  ( alali ) as  this  intermedi- 
ate link.  This  ape-like  man,  or  pithecanthropi,  very 
probably  existed  toward  the  end  of  the  tertiary  pe- 
riod. They  originated  out  of  the  man-like  apes,  or 
anthropoids,  by  becoming  completely  habituated  to 
an  upright  walk,  and  by  the  corresponding  stronger 
differentiation  of  both  pairs  of  legs.  The  fore-hand 
of  the  anthropoids  became  the  human  hand,  their 
hinder  hand  became  a foot  for  walking.  Although 
these  ape-like  men  must,  not  merely  by  the  external 
formation  of  their  bodies,  but  also  by  their  internal 
mental  development,  have  been  much  more  akin  to 
real  man  than  the  man-like  apes  could  have  been, 
yet  they  did  not  possess  the  real  and  chief  character- 
istic of  man,  namely,  the  articulate  human  language 
of  words,  the  corresponding  development  of  a higher 
conciousness,  and  the  formation  of  ideas.  * * * 


338 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


“ Genuine  men  developed  out  of  the  ape-like  men 
of  the  preceding  stage  by  the  gradual  development 
of  the  animal  language  of  sounds  into  a connected  or 
articulate  language  of  words.  The  development  of 
this  function,  of  course,  went  hand  in  hand  with  the 
development  of  its  organs,  namely,  the  higher  differ- 
entiation of  the  larynx  and  the  brain.  The  transi- 
tion from  speechless  ape-like  men  to  genuine  talking 
men  probably  took  place  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Quatenary  period,  namely,  the  Diluvial  period,  but 
possibly  even  at  an  earlier  date,  in  the  more  recent 
Tertiary.”  (Ibid,  p.  398,  399). 

Continuing,  Mr.  Haeckel  says:  “Those  pro- 

cesses of  development  which  led  to  the  origin  of  the 
most  ape-like  men  out  of  the  most  man-like  apes, 
must  be  looked  for  in  the  two  adaptive  changes 
which,  above  all  others,  contributed  to  the  mak- 
ing of  man,  namely,  upright  wallc  and  articulate 
speech.  These  two  physiological  functions  necessari- 
ly originated  together  with  two  corresponding  mor- 
phological transmutations,  with  which  they  stand  in 
the  closest  corelation,  namely,  the  differentiation  of 
the  two  pairs  of  limbs  and  the  differentiation  of  the 
larynx.  The  important  perfecting  of  these  organs 
and  their  functions  must  have  necessarily  and  pow- 
erfully reacted  upon  the  differentiation  of  the  brain 
and  the  mental  activities  dependent  upon  it,  and 
thus  paved  the  way  for  the  endless  career  in  which 
man  has  since  progressively  developed,  and  in  which 
he  lias  far  outstripped  his  animal  ancestors. 

“ The  first  and  earliest  of  these  three  great  pro- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


339 


cesses  in  the  development  of  the  human  organism 
probably  was  the  higher  differentiation  and  the  per- 
fecting of  the  extremities  which  was  effected  by  the 
habit  of  an  upright  walk.  By  the  fore  feet  more  and 
more  exclusively  adopting  and  retaining  the  function 
of  grasping  and  handling,  and  the  hinder  feet  more  and 
more  exclusively  the  function  of  standing  and  walk- 
ing, there  was  developed  that  contrast  between  the 
hand  and  foot  which  is  indeed  not  exclusively  char- 
acteristic of  man,  but  which  is  much  more  strongly 
developed  in  him  than  in  any  of  the  apes  most 
like  men.  This  differentiation  of  the  fore  and  hinder 
extremities  was  not  merely  most  advantageous  for 
their  own  development  and  perfecting,  but  it  was 
followed  at  the  same  time  by  a whole  series  of  very 
important  changes  in  other  parts  of  the  body.  The 
whole  vertebral  column,  and  more  especially  the 
chest,  the  girdle  of  the  pelvis  and  shoulders,  as  also 
the  muscles  belonging  to  them,  thereby  experienced 
those  changes  which  distinguish  the  human  body 
from  that  of  the  most  man-like  apes.  There  trans- 
mutations were  probably  accomplished  long  before 
the  origin  of  articulate  speech;  and  the  human  race 
thus  existed  for  long,  with  an  upright  walk  and  the 
characteristic  human  form  of  the  body  connected  with 
it,  before  the  actual  development  of  human  language, 
which  would  have  completed  the  second  and  more  im- 
portant part  of  human  development.  We  may,  there- 
fore, distinguish  a special  (24th)  stage  in  the  series 
of  our  human  ancestors,  namely,  speechless  man 
(Alcilus) , or  ape-man  (Pithecathropus) , whose  body 


340 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


was  indeed  formed  exactly  like  that  of  man  in  all  es- 
sential characteristics,  but  did  not  as  yet  possess  ar- 
ticulate speech. 

“ The  origin  of  articulate  language,  and  the 
higher  differentiation  and  perfecting  of  the  larynx  con- 
nected with  it,  must  be  looked  upon  as  a later,  and 
the  most  important  stage  in  the  process  of  the  de- 
velopment of  man.  It  was,  doubtless,  this  process 
which  above  all  others  helped  to  create  the  deep 
chasm  between  man  and  animals,  and  which  also 
first  caused  the  most  important  progress  in  the  men- 
tal activity  and  the  perfecting  of  the  brain  connected 
with  it.”  (Ibid,  pp.  405,  406,  407). 

Mr.  Haeckel  admits  that  geological  research, 
which  has  discovered  some  remains  of  about  all  that 
ever  existed  on  the  earth,  has  never  found  the  least 
trace  of  such  a creature  as  his  “ Speechless  Man.” 
Yet  with  that  unparalleled  audacity  which  is  char- 
acteristic of  him,  he  proceeds  to  describe  it  as 
though  he  had  a specimen  before  him. 

He  says:  “ We  as  yet  know  of  no  fossil  remains 

of  the  hypothetical  primeval  man  (protanthropus 
alavis — Homo  primigenius) . But  considering  the 
extraordinary  resemblance  between  the  lowest 
woolly-haired  men  and  the  highest  man-like  apes, 
which  still  exist  at  the  present  day,  it  requires  but 
a slight  stretch  of  the  imagination  to  conceive  an 
intermediate  form  connecting  the  two,  and  to  see  in 
it  an  approximate  likeness  to  the  supposed  primeval 
man,  or  ape-like  man.  The  form  of  their  skull  was 
probably  very  long,  with  slanting  teeth;  their  hair 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


341 


wooley;  the  color  of  their  skin  dark,  of  a brownish 
tint.  The  hair  covering  the  whole  body  was  proba- 
bly thicker  than  in  any  of  the  still  living  human 
species ; their  arms  comparatively  longer  and  stronger; 
their  legs,  on  the  other  hand,  knock-kneed,  shorter 
and  thinner,  with  entirely  undeveloped  calves;  their 
walk  but  half  erect.”  (Ibid,  p.  438) . 

Continuing,  Mr.  Haeckel  says: 

“The  difficulties  met  with  in  classifying  the  dif- 
ferent races  and  species  of  men  are  quite  the  same  as 
those  which  we  discover  in  classifying  animal  and 
vegetable  species.  In  both  cases  forms  apparently 
quite  different,  are  connected  with  one  another  by  a 
chain  of  intermediate  forms  of  transition.  In  both 
cases  the  dispute  as  to  what  is  a kind  or  a species, 
what  a race  or  a variety,  can  never  be  determined. 
Since  Blumenbach’s  time,  as  is  well  known,  it  has 
been  thought  that  mankind  may  be  divided  into  five 
races  or  varieties,  namely:  (1)  the  Ethiopian,  or  black 
race  (African  negro) ; (2)  the  Malayan,  or  brown 
race  (Malays,  Polynesians  and  Australians)  ; (3)  the 
Mongolian,  or  yellow  race  (the  principal  inhabitant 
of  Asia  and  the  Esquimaux  of  North  America) ; (4) 
the  American,  or  red  race  (the  aborigines  of  Amer- 
ica) ; and  (5)  the  Caucasian,  or  white  race  (Euro- 
peans, North  Africans  and  south  western  Asiatics). 
All  these  five  races  of  men,  according  to  the  Jewish 
legend  of  creation,  are  said  to  have  descended  from 
“a  single  pair” — Adam  and  Eve — and  in  accordance 
with  this  are  said  to  be  varieties  of  one  kind  or 
species.  If,  however,  we  compare  them  without 


342 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


prejudice,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  differences 
of  these  five  races  are  as  great  and  even  greater  than 
the  ‘ specific  differences  ’ by  which  zoologists  and 
botanists  distinguish  recognized  good  animal  and 
vegetable  species  (bonse  species).”  (Ibid,  p.  412). 

The  opinion  most  generally  entertained  by  the 
leading  advocates  of  evolution  is,  that  this  purely 
hypothetical  creature,  “Speechless  Man,”  differ- 
entiated into  the  negro  with  articulate  speech;  the 
great  majority  of  the  negroes  developing  no  higher, 
thus  presenting  a case  of  “arrested  development;” 
but  that  in  the  course  of  time  a branch  of  the  ne- 
groes differentiated  into  Malays;  the  great  majority 
of  the  Malays  developing  no  higher;  and  thus  pre- 
senting another  case  of  “arrested  development;” 
but  that  in  the  course  of  events  a branch  of  the 
Malays  developed  into  Indians;  the  great  majority 
of  the  Indians  developing  no  higher,  and  thus  pre- 
senting another  case  of  “arrested  development;” 
but  that  in  the  course  of  events  a branch  of  the  In- 
dians developed  into  Mongolians;  the  great  majority 
of  the  Mongolians  developing  no  higher,  and  thus 
presenting  another  case  of  “arrested  development;” 
but  that  at  some  remote  period  a branch  of  the 
Mongolians  differentiated  into  Caucasians  (whites) . 
Mr.  Haeckel  differs  somewhat  from  the  older  evolu- 
tionists, as  shown  by  the  following:  “A  great  many 
reasons  might  be  advanced  in  favor  of  the  opinion 
that  the  primeval  men  of  the  Lissotrichous  species 
(the  primary  forms  of  straight-haired  men)  were 
derived  from  the  South  Asiatic  anthropoids,  whereas 


THE  TEMPTEE  OP  EVE. 


343 


the  primeval  men  of  the  Ulotrichous  species  (as  the 
primary  forms  of  the  four  wooly-haired  tribes)  were 
derived  from  Central  African  man-like  apes.”  (Ibid, 
Yol.  II,  p.  439) . 

The  evolutionist  takes  the  fish,  and  fowl,  and 
beasts,  and  man,  and  masses  them  into  what  he 
terms  “the  zoological  system;”  he  then  divides  “the 
zoological  system”  into  classes,  orders,  genera, 
species,  races,  sub-races,  and  varieties.  Having  de- 
cided that  man  is  simply  an  animal,  the  evolutionist 
places  him  in  “the  zoological  system”  with  the  rest 
of  the  animals;  he  then  decides,  (1)  that  man  be- 
longs to  the  class — mammalia;  which  embraces  all 
creatures  that  suckle  their  young;  this  includes 
man,  the  apes  and  quadrupeds  among  the  land  ani- 
mals, and  the  whale  family  among  the  fish;  (2) 
that  he  belongs  to  the  order — bimana;  this  “order” 
embraces  not  only  man,  but  every  member  of  the 
ape  species  from  the  lemur  on  up  to  and  including 
the  negro;  (3)  that  man  belongs  to  the  genus — 
homo;  this  not  only  includes  the  so-called  “Cau- 
casian race  ” (Homo  Mediterraneuse) ; the  so-called 
“Mongol  race”  (Homo  Mongol) ; the  so-called  “In- 
dian race  ” (Homo  Americanus) ; the  so-called  “ Ma- 
lay race”  (Homo  Malayus) ; the  so-called  “Negro 
race  ” (Homo  Niger) ; but  necessarily  embraces 
“ Speechless  Man”  ( Protanthropos  atavis-Homo  prim- 
egenius) , the  first  man;  (4)  that  the  “Species  Man,” 
the  so-called  “Human  Species,”  is  divisible  into  five 
races  of  men;  and  that  these  may  be  divided  into 
sub-races,  and  varieties. 


344 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Thus,  according  to  the  theory  of  natural  devel- 
opment or  evolution,  man  is  simply  a highly  devel- 
oped species  of  ape — the  human  species — and  this 
human  species  is  divisible  into  five  or  more  races 
of  men. 

It  should  be  unnecessary  for  us  to  state  that 
this  cold,  uncompromising  materialism;  this  demor- 
alizing atheism,  which  degrades  us  to  the  level  of  the 
brute,  by  declaring  the  existence  of  a “ blood  rela- 
tionship ” between  man  and  the  animals,  denies  to 
man  immortality. 

In  the  preceding  pages  of  this  work  we  have  pre- 
sented the  teachings  of  the  two  great  schools  of  learn- 
ing, Divine  Creation  and  Natural  Development  or 
Evolution;  we  have  presented  the  leading  features 
of  the  school  of  Creation,  in  the  language  of  the  in- 
spired authors;  we  have  also  presented  the  leading 
features  of  the  school  of  Evolution,  as  far  as  our  lim- 
ited space  would  permit,  in  the  language  of  its  leading 
advocates;  and  we  feel  assured  that  even  the  most 
skeptical  will  see  that  these  two  schools  are  opposites ; 
that  the  most  open,  direct  conflict  exists  between 
them;  and  that  no  amount  of  reasoning  can  possibly 
reconcile  the  differences  between  them.  How  can 
we  hope  to  harmonize  the  Word  of  God  with  this 
theory  which  denies  the  existence  of  God?  A mo- 
ment’s reflection  should  convince  us  of  the  hopeless- 
ness of  such  a task.  Hence,  our  acceptance  of  the 
teachings  of  one  of  these  schools,  necessarily  carries 
with  it  our  rejection  of  the  other.  The  teachings  of 
these  opposing  schools  are  in  conflict  at  every  point; 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


345 


and  it  is  not  only  foolish  but  criminal  to  attempt  to 
blend  and  confuse  them  by  accepting  the  teachings 
of  the  one  on  certain  points,  and  rejecting  the  teach- 
ings of  the  other  on  those  points;  when  we  indulge 
in  this  folly  we  have  as  a result  a blended,  distorted 
mixture  of  the  two  which  bears  little  or  no  resem- 
blance to  either  of  the  originals;  no  leading  advocate 
of  evolution  would  accept  this  unnatural  mixture, 
and  every  believer  in  the  Bible  should  reject  it.  For 
example:  the  Bible  teaches  that  man  was  created  “in 
the  image  of  God.”  Evolution  teaches  that  man  is 
simply  a highly  developed  species  of  ape,  who  traces 
his  descent  back  through  a long  line  of  “ animal  an- 
cestors” to  the  lowest  form  of  animal,  itself  the 
result  of  “ spontaneous  generation.”  How  can  we 
ever  reconcile  these  conflicting  teachings?  The  Bible 
teaches  that  “all  flesh  is  not  the  same  flesh:  but 
there  is  one  kind  of  flesh  of  man,  another  flesh  of 
beasts,  another  of  fishes,  and  another  of  birds.” 
Hence,  there  is  no  kinship  between  creatures  belong- 
ing to  two  different  kinds  of  flesh;  that  there  is  no 
kinship  between  man  and  the  animals;  but  that  God 
and  man  are  akin.  Evolution  teaches  that  there  is 
a link  of  kinship  extending  from  the  monera  on 
up  through  the  fish,  and  fowl,  and  beast,  to  form  a 
“blood  relationship”  with  man;  that  all  flesh  is  the 
same  flesh,  since  man  and  the  animals  are  all  akin. 
Hence,  from  the  monera  to  man  there  is  just  one 
flesh  in  different  stages  of  development.  How  can 
we  hope  to  harmonize  the  teachings  of  evolution  that 
man  and  the  animals  are  of  the  same  flesh,  with  the 


346 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Bible  teaching  that  there  are  four  different  kinds  of 
flesh  with  no  more  kinship  between  them  than  if 
they  each  made  their  appearance  upon  and  inhabited 
different  planets? 

If  we  accept  the  teachings  of  Moses,  that  God 
made  the  animals,  like  the  plants,  after  their  kind, 
the  theory  of  the  evolutionist  falls  still-born  from 
the  imagination  that  conceived  it;  if  we  accept  the 
teaching  of  Paul  that  the  fish  and  fowl  and  beast,  each 
represent  a different  “ kind  of  flesh,”  the  theory  that 
the  fish  developed  into  the  fowl  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  land  animals  on  the  other,  and  through 
these  into  the  man,  receives  its  death  blow.  If  we 
accept  the  teachings  of  Moses  that  God  created  man 
in  his  own  “image;”  and  if  we  accept  the  teachings 
of  Luke  that  Adam  was  the  son  of  God;  and  if  we 
accept  the  teaching  of  Paul  that  even  the  flesh  of 
man  is  a different  “ kind  of  flesh  ” from  that  of  the 
animals,  the  theory  of  the  evolutionist  that  man  is  a 
highly  developed  species  of  apes — the  human 
species — and  that  this  human  species  is  divisible  in- 
to five  races  of  man,  falls  to  the  ground.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  teachings  of  evolution  are  true,  the 
teachings  of  Moses  and  Paul  are  false,  and  should  be 
repudiated;  and  inasmuch  as  all  the  inspired  writers 
of  the  Bible  were  in  harmony  with  Moses  and  Paul, 
their  teachings  must  also  be  false,  and  consistency 
demands  that  their  writings  should  be  repudiated; 
this  accomplished,  the  Bible,  with  all  its  elevating, 
ennobling,  soul-inspiring  teachings,  would  be  prac- 
tically obliterated  from  the  earth;  and  the  dream  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


347 


the  atheist  would  be  realized  in  the  universally  ac- 
cepted belief  in  the  existence  of  a universe  without 
a God,  a creation  without  a creator,  man  without 
religion,  and  the  world  without  a Sabbath  or  a Bible. 
However  much  professed  Christians  may  differ  with 
us  on  these  questions,  no  well  informed  atheist  will 
do  so ; we  have  seen  that  Haeckel  emphatically  states 
that  the  Schools  of  Creation  and  Evolution  are 
opposites. 

The  terms  “ tribes,”  “ nations,”  and  “ empires,” 
are  political  terms,  and  it  is  significant  that  the  in- 
spired writers  invariably  employ  these  political 
terms — tribes,  nations,  and  empires — in  describing 
the  relations  of  men.  On  the  other  hand,  the  terms 
“human  species,”  and  “races  of  men,”  are  an  insep- 
arable part  of  the  theory  of  evolution.  Hence,  it 
should  occasion  us  no  surprise  when  we  find  that, 
not  one  of  the  inspired  writers  makes  the  slightest  allu- 
sion to  such  a thing  as  a human  species  or  a race  of 
men. 

Throughout  the  Bible  we  find  no  mention  of 
such  a thing  as  a “ zoological  system  ” in  which  man 
is  thrust  with  the  animals;  no  such  thing  as  a “class 
mammalia,”  in  which  man  is  placed  with  the  higher 
land  animals  and  the  whale  family;  no  such  thing  as 
an  “order  bimana,”  in  which  man  is  placed  with  the 
apes  as  a two-handed  animal;  no  such  thing  as  a 
“genus  homo,”  embracing  “speechless  man  (Homo 
Primigenius) ; ” the  Negro  man  “ (Homo  Niger) ; ” 
the  “Malay  man  (Homo  Malayus);”  the  “Indian 
man  (Homos  Americanus) ; ” the  “Mongolian  man 


348 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


(Homos  Mongol) ; ” the  “ Mediterranean  (white)  man 
(Homo  Mediterranese) ; ” no  such  thing  as  a “ species, 
man,”  embracing  five  or  more  “ races  of  men.”  As 
might  have  been  expected,  these  misleading  terms 
which  were  born  of  the  purest  atheism,  are  conspic- 
uous in  scripture  by  their  absence.  These  facts 
should  afford  professed  Christians  food  for  grave  re- 
flection. 

The  terms  “species”  and  “races”  are  scientific 
terms;  they  belong  to  natural  science,  and  are  used 
to  describe  natural  relations;  and  there  is  in  natural 
science  the  same  broad  distinction  between  species 
and  races , as  exists  in  mathematics  between  units 
and  fractions.  A.  De  Quatrefages,  Professor  of  An- 
thropology in  the  Museum  of  Natural  History,  in 
Paris,  France,  a standard  authority  upon  such  ques- 
tions, says:  11  Species  is  the  unit  and  the  races  are 

the  fractions  of  this  unit.”  The  terms  species  and 
races  are  applicable  to  both  plants  and  animals,  since 
these  were  made  in  great  numbers  and  varieties; 
while  there  are  such  differences  between  certain 
plants  and  between  certain  animals  as  justifies  the 
naturalist  in  deciding  that  they  are  different  families 
or  species,  there  are  such  resemblances  between 
certain  members  of  these  families  or  species,  as  jus- 
tifies the  naturalist  in  deciding  that  they  are  branches 
or  races  of  these  species.  Thus,  species  is  the  unit 
of  which  races  are  the  fractions.  To  illustrate:  the 
ape  is  a species  of  animal,  but  this  species  is  formed 
of  a number  of  races;  the  lemur  is  one  race  of  the 
ape  species;  the  gorilla  is  another  race;  the  negro 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


349 


is  another  race  of  the  ape  species,  and  so  on  through- 
out the  series.  Hence,  a species  is  composed  of  a 
greater  or  less  number  of  races;  while  a race  is  a 
fractional  part  of  a species. 

This  enables  us  to  realize  that  God  never  in- 
tended that  man,  like  the  plants  and  animals,  should 
be  a species,  or  a race.  Man  was  created  a single 
pair,  and  a single  pair  is  not  species,  since  races 
which  are  essential  to  the  formation  of  a species  is 
wanting  in  man;  neither  was  this  single  pair  a race, 
since  it  was  not  a fractional  part  of  a species.  Thus, 
the  theory  now  universally  taught,  that  man  is  a 
species  which  is  composed  of  five  or  more  races  of 
men,  is  at  once  opposed  to  the  scriptures  and  the 
sciences. 

From  the  above  facts  it  is  plain  (1)  that  the 
theory  now  universally  taught,  that  man  is  a species 
which  is  divisible  into  five  or  more  races  of  men,  of 
which  the  white  is  the  highest  and  the  negro  the 
lowest  race,  with  the  browns,  reds  and  yellows  as  in- 
termediate races  in  different  stages  of  development, 
is  an  inseparable  part  of  the  atheistic  theory  of  evo- 
lution. (2)  That  it  was  atheism  that  took  the  negro 
out  of  the  ape  family,  where  God  made  him,  and 
thrust  him  into  the  family  of  man;  and  that  only 
the  purest,  most  unadulterated  atheism  keeps  him 
there.  This  being  true,  it  follows  that,  when  athe- 
ism is  repudiated,  and  the  teachings  of  scripture  are 
universally  accepted,  the  negro  will  at  once  retire 
from  his  present  unnatural  position  in  the  family  of 
man,  and  resume  his  proper  place  among  the  apes. 


350 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


The  fact  that  the  offspring  resulting  from  unions 
between  whites  and  negroes  are  fertile,  is  accepted 
as  proof  positive  that  they  are  merely  different  races 
of  the  same  species;  for,  the  opinion  is  generally  en- 
tertained, that  the  offspring  resulting  from  unions  be- 
tween different  species  are  always  barren.  This 
theory  advanced  by  the  older  naturalist,  is  now 
exploded.  Dr.  Topinard  says:  “Between  species 

the  crosses  are  common  and  fertile  * * * as 

the  progeny  of  the  hare  and  the  rabbit,  the  dog  and 
the  wolf,  the  jackal  and  the  fox,  the  camel  and  the 
dromedary,  the  alpaca  and  the  llama  or  vecuna,  the 
horse  and  the  zebra  or  wild  mule,  the  bison  and  the 
European  ox,  etc.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  we  have  been  deceived  as  to  the  reality 
of  certain  species;  and  that  such  were  only  varieties. 
* * * It  is  now  certain  that  the  limit  of  species 

is  not  an  absolute  obstacle  to  fertility,  and  conse- 
quently that  its  circumscription  has  nothing  decided 
about  it.”  ( Anthropology , p.  368). 

Prof.  Quatrefages  says:  “Sexual  unions  in 

plants,  as  in  animals,  can  take  place  between  indi- 
viduals of  the  same  species  and  the  same  race; 
further  between  different  races  of  the  same  species, 
and  finally,  between  different  species.  In  the  two 
latter  cases  we  have  what  is  called  a cross.  This 
crossing,  itself,  is  differently  named  according  to 
whether  it  takes  place  between  different  races  or  dif- 
ferent species.  In  the  first  case  it  produces  a mon- 
grel, in  the  second  a hybrid.  When  the  cross  unions 
are  fertile  the  product  of  the  union  of  mongrels  is 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


351 


called  a mongrel,  the  product  of  the  union  of  hybrids, 
a hybrid.”  {The  Human  Species,  p.  63). 

In  the  atheist’s  division  of  the  so-called  “ Zo- 
ological system,”  the  animals  of  different  genera,  are 
not  so  nearly  related  to  each  other  as  those  of  different 
species;  and  again,  the  animals  of  different  orders  are 
not  so  closely  related  to  each  other  as  those  of  dif- 
ferent genera.  Dr.  Topenard  says:  “ It  is  stated 

that  individuals  of  different  Orders  have  given  birth 
to  offspring,  as  between  the  bull  and  the  mare,  whose 
progeny  or  jumarts  inhabitated  the  Atlas  mountains 
and  the  mountains  of  Piedmont.  It  is  a better 
authenticated  fact  that  the  phenomenon  takes  place 
between  different  genera.  M.  de  Bouills,  in  1873, 
described  the  offspring  of  the  cross  between  the  Ibex 
of  the  Pyrenees  and  the  domestic  goat.  The 
Pehuelhas  in  the  Chilian  Alps  crossed  this  latter 
with  the  sheep  and  obtained  a very  vigorous  breed 
called  chabins  (buck  sheep) , whose  decendants,  fer- 
tile through  an  indefinite  number  of  generations,  are 
of  considerable  commercial  value  on  account  of  their 
skins  and  fleeces,  known  by  the  name  of  ‘pellons.’  ” 
{Ibid,  p.  367). 

Thus,  it  is  shown  that  not  only  a cross  between 
different  species,  but  even  a cross  between  different 
genera  will  produce  offspring  that  is  indefinitely 
fertile;  and,  “it  is  stated  that  individuals  of  different 
Orders  have  given  birth  to  offspring”  that  is  fertile. 
Hence,  the  mere  fact  that  the  offspring  of  Whites  and 
Negroes  are  fertile,  is  no  evidence  that  they  are  of 
the  same  species,  or  the  same  genera,  or  even  of  the 


352 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


same  order.  On  the  other  hand,  as  we  shall  here- 
after show,  the  Bible  teaches  that  unions  between 
individuals  of  different  hinds  of  flesh — those  of  man 
and  beast — will  be  indefinitely  fertile. 

The  want  of  space  forbids  our  further  discus- 
sion of  the  theory  of  development.  However,  in 
view  of  the  facts  above  set  forth,  it  should  be  an 
affront  to  our  intelligence  to  ask  us  to  believe  that, 
not  only  the  earth  and  the  celestial  bodies;  not  only 
plant  and  animal  life,  but  that  even  man,  with  his 
flashing  intellect  and  his  immortal  soul,  “ were  once 
latent  in  a fiery  cloud.” 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


The  Garden  of  Eden. 

“And  God  planted  a garden  eastward  in  Eden; 
And  there  he  put  the  man  whom  he  had  formed. 
And  out  of  the  ground  made  the  Lord  God  to  grow 
every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight,  and  good  for 
food;  the  tree  of  life  also  in  the  midst  of  the  garden, 
and  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  And  a 
river  went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden;  And 
from  thence  it  was  parted,  and  became  four  heads. 
The  name  of  the  first  is  Pison.  * * * And  the 

name  of  the  second  river  is  Gihon.  * * * And 

the  name  of  the  third  river  is  Hiddekel.  * * * 

And  the  name  of  the  fourth  river  is  Euphrates. 
And  the  Lord  God  took  the  man,  and  put  him  into 
the  Garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it.  And 
the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of  every 
tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat.  But  of 
the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou 
shalt  not  eat  of  it:  for  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die.”  (Gen.  ii,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  etc.). 

“ Man  He  made  of  angel  form  erect, 

To  hold  communion  with  the  heavens  above, 
And  on  his  soul  impressed  His  image  fair 
His  own  similitude  of  holiness, 

Of  virtue,  truth,  and  love;  with  reason  high 
To  balance  right  and  wrong,  and  conscience  quick 
To  choose  or  to  reject;  with  knowledge  great, 

353 


354  THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 

Prudence  and  wisdom,  vigilance  and  strength, 
To  guard  all  force  or  guile;  and,  last  of  all, 

The  highest  gift  of  God’s  abundant  grace, 

With  perfect,  free,  unbiased  will.  Thus  man 
Was  made,  upright,  immortal  made,  and  crowned 
The  king  of  all;  to  eat,  to  drink,  to  do 
Truly  and  sovereignly  his  will  entire; 

By  one  command  alone  restrained,  to  prove, 

As  was  most  just,  his  fillial  love  sincere, 

His  loyalty,  obedience  due,  and  faith. 

And  thus  the  prohibition  ran,  expressed, 

As  God  is  wont,  in  terms  of  plainest  truth: 

‘ Of  every  tree  that  in  the  garden  grows 
Thou  mayest  freely  eat;  but  of  the  tree 
That  hath  of  good  and  ill,  eat  not, 

Nor  touch;  for  in  the  day  thou  eatest,  thou 
Shalt  die.  Go,  and  this  one  command  obey; 
Adam,  live  and  be  happy,  and  with  thy  Eve, 

Fit  consort,  multiply  and  fill  the  earth.’ 

Thus  they,  the  representatives  of  men, 

Were  placed  in  Eden — choicest  spot  on  earth; 
With  royal  honor  and  with  glory  crowned, 
Adam,  the  lord  of  all,  majestic  walked, 

With  God-like  countenance  sublime,  and  form 
Of  lofty  towering  strength;  and  by  his  side 
Eve,  fair  as  morning  star,  with  modesty 
Arrayed,  with  virtue,  grace,  and  perfect  love: 

In  holy  marriage  wed,  and  eloquent 
Of  thought  and  comely  words,  to  worship  God 
And  sing  His  praise — the  Giver  of  all  good. 
Glad,  in  each  other  glad,  and  glad  in  hope.” 

— Pollok. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


355 


Man  could  no  more  develop  a civilization,  and 
depend  upon  the  wild  plants  of  the  forest  for  his  sup- 
ply of  vegetable  food,  than  he  could,  and  depend 
upon  the  chase  for  his  supply  of  animal  food.  Hence, 
domestic  plants  and  domestic  animals  are  essential 
to  civilization.  With  domestic  plants,  man  can  in- 
crease his  supply  of  both  vegetable  and  animal  food 
to  meet  the  demands  of  an  increasing  population. 
Domestic  plants  are  dependent  upon  cultivation  for 
their  existence.  Without  culture,  they  either  rapidly 
degenerate,  or  soon  die  out  and  disappear  altogether. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  cereals  from  which  man 
derives  his  supply  of  bread.  Domestic  plants  have 
not,  as  the  atheist  would  have  us  believe,  been  devel- 
oped from  “wild  originals;”  they  were  God's  special 
gift  to  man.  Without  them  man  could  never  develop 
the  resources  of  the  earth.  The  obligation  to  do  this 
devolved  upon  Adam  from  the  moment  of  his  assign- 
ment to  this  task.  Hence,  he  had  no  time  to  develop 
wild  originals  into  domestic  plants.  Many  of  these  so- 
called  “ wild  originals,”  are  merely  degenerate  domes- 
tic plants,  which  have  survived  some  old  civilization, 
in  which  they  were  cultivated.  This  absurd  idea  that 
the  domestic  plants  were  all  developed  from  “wild 
originals,”  is  a part  of  The  Theory  of  Development-, 
which  denies  the  existence  of  a Creator,  and  attrib- 
utes everything  to  natural  causes.  According  to  this 
theory,  man  developed  from  the  ape;  then,  by  ages 
of  cultivation,  man  developed  the  domestic  plants 
from  those  which  originally  were  wild.  The  whole 
proposition  is  atheism,  pure  and  simple.  Yet  we  see 
it  accepted  and  advocated  by  Drofessed  Christians. 


356 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EVE. 


Dr.  Macmillan  says  of  corn:  “ God  gave  it  to 

Adam,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  in  the  same 
perfect  state  of  preparation  for  food  in  which  we  find 
it  at  the  present  day.  It  was  made  expressly  for 
man,  and  given  directly  into  his  hands.  ‘Behold,’ 
says  the  Creator,  ‘ I have  given  you  every  herb- 
bearing seed  which  is  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth  ’ 
— that  is,  all  the  cereal  plants,  such  as  corn,  wheat, 
barley,  rice,  maize,  etc.,  whose  peculiar  distinction 
and  characteristic  it  is  to  produce  seed.  * * * 

The  word  of  God  plainly  tells  us  this,  and  nature  af- 
fords a remarkable  corroboration  of  it.  We  cannot 
regard  it  as  an  accidental,  but,  on  the  contrary,  as  a 
striking,  providential  circumstance,  that  the  corn 
plants  were  utterly  unknown  throughout  the  geolog- 
ical periods.  Not  the  slightest  trace  or  vestige  of 
them  occurs  in  any  strata  of  the  earth,  until  we  come 
to  the  most  recent  formations,  contemporaneous  with 
man.  They  are  exclusively  and  characteristically 
plants  of  the  human  epoch;  their  remains  are  found 
in  deposits  near  the  surface,  which  belong  to  the  ex- 
isting order  of  physical  conditions.  * * * There 

is  another  proof  that  corn  was  created  expressly  for 
man’s  use  in  the  fact  that  it  has  never  been  found  in 
a wild  state.  * * * Where  are  the  wild  grasses 

which,  according  to  some  authors,  cumulative  pro- 
cesses of  agriculture,  carried  on  through  successive 
ages,  have  developed  into  corn,  wheat,  and  barley? 
Much  has  been  written,  and  many  experiments  have 
been  tried  to  determine  the  natural  origin  of  these 
cereals,  but  every  effort  has  hitherto  proved  in  vain. 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


357 


Reports  have  again  and  again  been  circulated  that 
corn  and  wheat  have  been  found  growing  wild  in 
some  parts  of  Persia  and  the  steppes  of  Tartary,  ap- 
parently far  from  the  influence  of  cultivation;  but, 
when  tested  by  botanical  data,  these  reports  have 
turned  out  in  every  instance  to  be  unfounded.  Corn 
has  never  been  known  as  anything  else  than  a cul- 
tivated plant.  The  oldest  records  speak  of  it  exclu- 
sively as  such.  * * * History  and  observation 

prove  that  it  cannot  grow  spontaneously.  * * * 

Neglected  of  men,  it  speedily  disappears  and  be- 
comes extinct.  * * * All  this  proves  that  it 

must  have  been  produced  miraculously,  or,  in  other 
words,  given  by  God  to  man  directly  in  the  same 
abnormal  condition  in  which  it  now  appears;  for  na- 
ture never  could  have  developed  or  preserved  it.  In 
the  mythology  of  all  the  ancient  nations  it  was  con- 
fidently affirmed  to  have  had  a supernatural  origin. 
* * * Let  me  bring  forward  one  more  proof  of 

special  design,  enabling  us  to  recognize  the  hand  of 
God  in  this  mercy.  Corn  is  universally  diffused.  It 
is  almost  the  only  species  of  plant  which  is  capable 
of  growing  everywhere,  in  almost  every  soil,  in  al- 
most any  situation.  In  some  form  or  other,  adapted 
to  the  various  modifications  of  climate  and  physical 
conditions  which  occur  in  different  countries,  it  is 
spread  over  an  area  of  the  earth’s  surface  as  exten- 
sive as  the  occupancy  of  the  human  race.  * * * 

Corn,  as  the  German  botanist,  Yon  Meyer,  says,  pre- 
cedes all  civilization ; with  it  is  connected  rest,  peace, 
and  domestic  happiness,  of  which  the  wandering 


358 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


savage  knows  nothing.  In  order  to  rear  it,  nations 
must  take  possession  of  certain  lands.”  ( Bible  Teach- 
ings in  Nature,  Chap,  v) . 

While  we  appreciate  the  force  of  Mr.  Macmillan’s 
argument  that  cultivation  is  essential  to  the  existence 
of  corn,  we  feel  assured  that  he  was  unfortunate  in 
his  selection  of  a text  to  support  his  position.  The 
production  of  seed  is  not  a character  peculiar  to  the 
cereals  or  any  domestic  plant.  Seed-bearing  plants 
existed  upon  the  earth  long  ages  previous  to  the 
creation  of  man.  Many  of  the  land  animals  and 
fowls  from  which  man  was  designed  to  derive  his 
supply  of  animal  food,  subsisted  on  these  seeds ; and 
do  so  still;  while  many  other  animals  from  which 
man  was  designed  to  derive  his  supply  of  animal  food 
subsisted  on  foliage,  and  do  yet.  In  this  sense  we 
may  understand  the  text:  “Behold  I have  given 

you  every  herb-bearing  seed,  which  is  upon  the  face 
of  all  the  earth,  and  every  tree  in  which  is  the  fruit 
of  a tree  yielding  seed;  to  you  it  shall  be  for  meat. 
And  to  every  beast  of  the  earth,  and  to  every  fowl  of 
the  air,  and  to  everything  that  creepeth  upon  the 
earth  wherein  there  is  life,  I have  given  every  green 
herb  for  meat.” 

We  are  thus  taught:  (1)  That  God  made  the 

wild  forest  growths  and  gave  them  to  man.  They 
never  developed  from  lower  forms.  The  pine  has 
always  been  a pine;  the  oak  has  always  been  an  oak; 
the  beech  has  always  been  a beech ; and  so  on  through- 
out the  list.  (2)  That  it  was  not,  as  many  suppose, 
the  design  of  God  that  man  should  subsist  solely  on 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


359 


a vegetable  diet;  but  that,  in  addition  to  this,  he 
should  have  a supply  of  animal  food.  (3)  That  in 
the  wild  forest  growths,  provision  had  been  made 
for  the  subsistence  of  the  land  animals  and  fowls, 
which  preceded  man  ; and  over  which  man  was 
commanded  to  “have  dominion,”  and  from  which 
he  was  to  derive  his  supply  of  animal  food.  Hence, 
“They  shall  be  to  you  for  meat.”  Thus,  long  pre- 
vious to  the  creation  of  man  there  was  provision 
made  for  his  supply  of  animal  food.  This  view  of 
the  text  is  further  sustained  by  the  fact  that  after  the 
creation  of  man,  there  was  a special  provision  made 
for  his  supply  of  vegetable  food,  as  shown  by  the 
following: 

“And  the  Lord  God  planted  a garden  eastward 
in  Eden;  and  there  he  put  the  man  whom  He  had 
formed.  And  out  of  the  ground  made  the  Lord  God 
to  grow  every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight,  and 
good  for  food.” 

We  are  thus  clearly  taught  that,  just  as  the 
Israelites  were  given  homes  in  a highly  developed 
country  which  they  had  not  developed,  so  was  Adam 
given  a home  in  a highly  developed  section  of 
country  which  he  had  not  developed.  The  land  of 
Canaan  which  was  given  to  Israel,  was  developed  by 
the  Canaanites.  The  Garden  of  Eden,  which  was 
given  to  Adam,  was  developed  by  God  Himself.  A 
moment’s  reflection  should  convince  us  that  the 
efforts  of  the  Canaanites  in  developing  the  land  of 
Canaan  is  not  to  be  compared  to  the  effort  of  God  in 
developing  the  Garden  of  Eden;  and  that  no  home 


360 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


which  man  has  ever  prepared  for  himself  in  any  land, 
could  compare  with  that  peerless  home  which  the 
Great  Architect  of  the  universe  prepared  in  Eden  for 
His  earthly  son. 

So  far  as  our  reading  and  our  observation  ex- 
tends, little  or  no  attention  is  paid  to  the  biblical 
description  of  the  Garden  of  Eden;  while  many  pro- 
fessed Christians  regard  it  as  a myth,  and  the  inci- 
dents associated  with  it,  as  mere  allegories. 

We  are  not  of  those  who  regard  Eden  as  a myth. 
The  Garden  of  Eden  had  an  existence  as  real  as 
that  of  Jerusalem  or  Rome.  Neither  are  we  of 
those  who  regard  the  incidents  connected  with  it  as 
allegories.  These  were  real  occurrences  which  have 
led  to  the  most  important  events  in  man’s  history, 
and  are  even  now  leading  to  others  as  momentous. 

The  biblical  description  of  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
and  the  incidents  associated  with  it,  are  an  insepar- 
able part  of  the  inspired  writings;  and  as  such,  are 
entitled  to  the  same  consideration  and  respect  as  any 
other  part  of  the  scriptures.  The  theologians,  who 
assume  the  authority  to  decide  that  the  Garden  of 
Eden  is  a myth  and  that  the  events  associated  with 
it  are  mere  allegories , should  feel  it  a duty  incum- 
bent upon  them  to  tell  us  when  myths  and  allegories 
end  in  Genesis,  and  where  a plain  statement  of  facts 
begin.  If  Genesis  is  false,  upon  what  principal 
would  we  decide  that  any  other  book  in  the  Bible  is 
true?  If  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  have  any 
basis  in  fact,  their  ultimate  basis  is  the  book  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


361 


Genesis.  If  Genesis  is  false,  the  super-structure — 
Christianity — is  a fraud,  and  religion  a farce. 

By  carefully  analyzing  the  biblical  description 
of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  we  are  enabled  to  decide  in- 
telligently as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  the  design  of 
God  that  man  should  be  the  subject  of  manual  toil. 
Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  we  are  now  discussing  a 
period  in  the  world’s  history  prior  to  the  advent  of 
woman.  When  Adam  was  created  and  placed  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  “ there  was  not  found  a help-meet  for 
him.”  He  was  the  sole  representative  of  his  kind  of 
flesh.  A proper  understanding  of  this  most  import- 
ant subject  of  flesh  enables  us  to  realize  and  appre- 
ciate the  full  import  of  Adam’s  declaration  upon  his 
reception  of  Eve:  “This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones, 

and  flesh  of  my  flesh.” 

The  biblical  term  “trees”  includes  all  plant- 
life  that  was  represented  in  the  Garden  of  Eden ; and 
is  not  confined  to  the  larger  growths  which  we  term 
“trees.”  It  includes  all  the  domestic  fruit  and  nut- 
bearing trees,  and  the  vines,  cereals,  vegetables,  etc., 
which  are  “good  for  food.”  And  also  every  plant 
“that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight,”  which  man  cultivates 
for  their  beauty  and  fragrance.  The  domestic  food 
and  ornamental  plants  are  God's  special  gift  to  man, 
and  made  their  first  appearance  upon  the  earth  in 
the  Garden  of  Eden.  The  most  positive  evidence  of 
this  is  furnished  by  geological  research,  which  proves 
that  the  earliest  evidence  of  the  existence  of  domestic 
plants  is  found  in  the  Neolethic  or  Age  of  Polished 
Stone.  It  is  a significant  fact  that  no  evidence  of  the 


362 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


existence  of  domestic  plants  is  found  in  the  Palaeo- 
lithic or  Age  of  Rough  Stone.  In  that  age  agriculture 
was  unknown,  and  nearly  all  the  domestic  plants  are 
dependent  upon  culture  for  their  existence.  With- 
out cultivation  they  soon  disappear.  This  is 
especially  true  of  the  cereals. 

From  the  biblical  description  of  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  we  are  taught  as  follows: 

1.  That  God  planted  it.  This  in  itself  should  be 
a sufficient  guarantee  that  it  was  absolutely  perfect  in 
all  of  its  details.  What  an  exhibition  of  parental  love 
was  there  displayed  by  the  Heavenly  Father  for  His 
earthly  son,  in  thus  providing  for  his  daily  wants, 
and  in  beautifying  and  adorning  the  garden  that  was 
designed  to  be  his  earthly  place  of  abode!  What  an 
exhibition  of  utility  its  crops  must  have  presented, 
in  which  was  represented  every  plant  that  was  “good 
for  food!  ” What  a spectacle  of  beauty  and  fragrance 
must  have  been  presented  by  this  garden,  in  which 
was  displayed  the  matchless  taste  of  the  Great  Arti- 
san of  the  heavens  and  the  earth! 

2.  That  every  domestic  plant  that  is  “ pleasant 
to  the  sight”  was  represented  there.  Not  single 
specimens,  but  doubtless  in  greater  or  less  profusion. 
Think  of  the  territory  it  would  require  to  accommo- 
date even  a few  specimens  of  every  domestic  plant 
which  man  cultivates  for  their  beauty  and  fragrance. 
Besides  many  of  the  wild  plants  are  beautiful  and 
fragrant;  and  these  doubtless  contributed  their 
beauty  and  fragrance  to  heighten  the  charms  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


363 


3.  That  every  plant  that  is  “good  for  food,” 
was  represented  there.  The  cereals,  vegetables, 
fruits,  nuts,  and  vines — all  the  food  plants.  Think 
of  the  territory  these  would  require.  This  was 
not  a mere  experiment  station,  planned  and  planted 
by  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  it  was  par  excel- 
lence, the  model  farm,  in  which  the  food  plants 
were  not  represented  merely  by  a few  specimens  of 
each.  They  were  “ planted  ” in  such  quantities  as 
was  necessary  to  supply  the  needs  of  man,  and  the 
animals,  which  were  required  to  dress  and  keep  the 
garden.  There  were  fields  of  maize,  wheat,  rye, 
oats,  barley,  rice — all  the  cereals;  gardens  in  which 
every  domestic  vegetable  was  grown;  orchards,  and 
vineyards  of  luscious  fruits  and  grapes;  parks  with 
trees  laden  with  edible  nuts;  and  meadows  and  pas- 
ture lands  for  the  cattle.  Utility,  beauty,  and  frag- 
rance struggled  for  the  mastery  in  this  peerless 
estate.  No  accomplishment  of  man,  the  creature,  can 
compare  with  this  masterpiece  of  God,  the  Creator. 
Doubtless  it  was  the  design  of  its  Divine  artist  that 
this  matchless  combination  of  heavenly  art  and 
earthly  beauty  and  fragrance  should  stand  through- 
out the  ages  as  a model  from  which  man  might  de- 
rive valuable  suggestions  in  his  efforts  to  beautify 
and  adorn  his  home. 

4.  Further  evidence  of  the  magnitude  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  required 
a river  to  water  it.  “And  a river  went  out  of  Eden 
to  water  the  garden.”  We  are  thus  told  in  plain 
language  that  the  Garden  of  Eden  was  not  depend- 


364 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


ent  upon  the  seasons  for  its  supply  of  water,  but 
upon  the  river  that  went  out  of  Eden;  just  as  the 
valley  of  the  Nile  is  not  dependent  upon  the  sea- 
sons for  its  supply  of  water,  but  upon  the  river  Nile. 
And  a moment’s  reflection  should  convince  us  that 
just  as  it  requires  an  extensive  system  of  irrigation 
to  transfer  the  waters  of  the  Nile  to  every  portion  of 
the  Nile  valley,  for  agricultural  purposes,  so  would 
it  require  an  extensive  system  of  irrigation  to  trans- 
fer the  waters  of  “the  river  that  went  out  of  Eden,” 
to  every  part  of  the  Garden  of  Eden  for  agricultural 
purposes. 

Additional  evidence  of  the  great  extent  of  that 
beautiful  garden  in  which  “the  Lord  God  planted” 
all  the  food  and  ornamental  plants,  which  depend 
upon  cultivation  for  their  existence,  is  found  in  the 
narrative  of  the  fall,  as  follows: 

And  the  serpent  “said  unto  the  woman,  Yea, 
hath  God  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  every  tree  of  the 
garden.  And  the  woman  said  unto  the  serpent,  We 
may  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the  garden:  But 
of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the 
garden,  God  hath  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither 
shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.  And  the  serpent  said 
unto  the  woman,  Ye  shall  not  surely  die:  For  God 
doth  know  that  in  the  day  ye  eat  thereof,  then  your 
eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as  Gods,  know- 
ing good  and  evil.  And  when  the  woman  saw  that 
the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant 
to  the  eyes,  and  a tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one 
wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


365 


gave  also  unto  her  husband  with  her;  and  he  did 
eat.”  (Gen.  iii,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6).  But  when  the  woman 
saw  that  the  tree  was  * * * pleasant  to  the  eyes: 

Thus  clearly  indicating  that  this  tree , which  was  sit- 
uated in  the  midst  of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  was  so 
far  removed  from  the  immediate  place  of  abode  of 
the  Adamic  pair  in  the  garden,  that  the  woman  had 
never  seen  it.  “But  when  the  woman  saw  that  the 
tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant  to 
the  eyes,  and  a tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise, 
she  took  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and  gave  also  unto  her 
husband  with  her;  and  he  did  eat.” 

The  magnitude  of  the  Garden  of  Eden  is  thus 
shown  by  the  fact  that  it  accommodated,  in  greater 
or  less  profusion,  specimens  of  all  the  ornamental 
plants  which  man  prizes  and  cultivates  for  their 
beauty  and  fragrance;  and  was  also  sufficiently  ex- 
tensive to  accommodate  in  greater  or  less  quantities 
the  domestic  plants  upon  which  man  relies  for  his 
supply  of  vegetable  food.  Its  great  extent  is  further 
shown  by  the  fact  that  it  required  a river  to  water 
it.  To  “ water  the  garden  ” with  the  waters  of  the 
river  would  require  a system  of  irrigation.  Thus, 
the  disposition  of  the  Atlanteans,  Egyptians,  Ancient 
Americans,  etc.,  to  rely  upon  the  certainty  of  irri- 
gation,, rather  than  upon  the  uncertainty  of  the  sea- 
sons, for  water  for  agricultural  purposes,  is  trace- 
able to  the  Garden  of  Eden. 

Let  us  bear  in  mind,  that  we  are  now  discussing 
a period  in  the  world’s  history  long  prior  to  the  time 
when  God  delegated  to  man  the  power  to  perform 


366 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


miracles;  and  that  Adam  is  not  accredited  with  per- 
forming any  miracles.  God  placed  Adam  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden  “ to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it.”  This 
simply  meant  that  Adam  was  to  cultivate  and  harvest 
the  various  crops,  plan,  construct,  and  operate  a sys- 
tem of  irrigation  to  transport  the  wrater  of  the  “ river” 
to  every  part  of  the  garden  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses; and  to  “keep”  this  immense  estate  in  the 
highest  state  of  cultivation.  It  was  simply  a plain 
business  transaction,  such  as  we  observe  in  every 
day  life.  A man  owns  a fine  estate,  but  for  some 
reason  prefers  not  to  take  upon  himself  the  manage- 
ment of  it;  in  this  case,  he  employs  an  agent, 
and  assigns  him  to  this  duty;  but  he  does  not  expect 
his  agent  to  perform  the  manual  labor;  this  is  per- 
formed by  servants  which  the  master  provides. 
There  was  nothing  supernatural  in  the  discharge  of 
the  duties  to  which  Adam  was  assigned  in  the  Gar- 
den of  Eden. 

Let  us  also  bear  in  mind  that  Adam’s  assign- 
ment to  this  duty  occurred  long  prior  to  his  fall; 
and  that  it  was  not  until  after  this  event,  and  as  a 
punishment  for  his  violation  of  Divine  law,  that  God 
sentenced  him  to  personally  “ till  the  ground,”  and 
thus  compelled  him  to  “eat  bread”  in  the  sweat  of 
his  face.  Hence,  while  it  is  evident  that,  “ to  dress,” 
“and  to  keep”  the  Garden  of  Eden  was  a duty  which 
devolved  upon  Adam  from  the  moment  of  his  as- 
signment to  this  task,  it  would  be  a reflection  upon 
the  wisdom,  and  justice,  and  love,  and  mercy  of 
God  to  decide  that  Adam  would  have  been  com- 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


367 


pelled  to  personally  “ till  the  ground/’  and  thus  “ eat 
bread”  “in  the  sweat”  of  his  “ face,”  even  if  he  had 
never  violated  Divine  law.  Yet  it  would  be  absurd 
to  suppose  that  this  lone  man  could,  from  year  to 
year,  plant,  cultivate  and  harvest  the  crops  of  every 
plant  “that  is  good  for  food;”  cultivate  the  vine- 
yards of  domestic  grapes;  and  the  orchards  of  domes- 
tic fruits,  propagate  and  cultivate  the  myriads  of  or- 
namental plants  which  contributed  their  beauty  and 
fragrance  to  embellish  this  magnificent  estate;  and 
also  construct  and  operate  a system  of  irrigation  to 
transport  the  waters  of  the  “ river  ” to  every  portion 
of  the  garden  for  agricultural  purposes,  with  only 
such  assistance  as  the  quadrupeds  could  render  him. 

But  when  we  lay  aside  our  absurd  theories,  and 
accept  the  teachings  of  scripture  and  of  science,  that 
the  negro  is  an  ape,  and  that  man  was  designed  to 
have,  and  commanded  to  exercise  “ dominion  ” over 
him  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  animals;  and 
that  in  common  with  the  domestic  animals  of  draught, 
burden  and  food,  Adam  possessed  such  numbers  of 
negroes,  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  as  enabled  him  “to 
dress  it  and  to  keep  it,”  the  whole  proposition  is 
simplified,  and  its  accomplishment  made  easy. 

The  negro,  as  he  existed  previous  to  the  creation 
of  man,  relied  chiefly  upon  the  proceeds  of  the  chase 
for  subsistence;  and  his  descendants  pursued  this 
one  vocation  from  generation  to  generation,  as  does 
the  undomesticated  negro  of  to-day.  But  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Noah  and  his  sons  owned  the 
negroes  which  survived  the  Deluge.  Hence,  the 


368 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


undomesticated  negro  of  modern  times  is  the  descend- 
ant of  the  domesticated  negro  of  ancient  times. 

Man,  whom  God  designed  to  subdue  the  earth 
and  have  dominion  over  fish,  and  fowl,  and  beast, 
pursues  an  almost  infinite  number  of  vocations, 

' many  of  which  tend  to  the  development  of  the  re- 
sources of  the  earth.  This  course  has  characterized 
him  from  the  earliest  ages  of  his  history.  As  shown 
by  the  Bible,  Adam  was  placed  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  “to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it.”  In  this  we  find 
the  most  positive  proof  that  domestic  plants,  which 
require  cultivation,  were  first  introduced  upon  the 
earth  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  in  which  God  planted 
them  immediately  after  the  creation  of  man.  This 
indicates  that  Adam  at  once  proceeded  to  engage  in 
agriculture — the  basis  of  all  civilization.  His  im- 
mediate offspring  also  engaged  in  the  pursuits  of 
civilized  life.  His  first  son  was  a farmer  and,  like 
all  farmers,  cultivated  domestic  plants.  The  wild 
forest  growths  thrive  without  cultivation.  Adam’s 
second  son  engaged  in  rearing  domestic  animals. 
“Abel  was  a keeper  of  sheep,  but  Cain  was  a tiller 
of  the  ground.”  Thus,  the  first  and  second  sons  of 
Adam  were  each  engaged  in  the  essential  pursuits  of 
civilized  life;  and  it  is  a significant  fact  that  Cain, 
the  first  child  born  to  the  Adamic  creation,  was  a tiller 
of  the  ground. 

We  are  thus  taught  that  man  was  not  created  an 
ignorant,  degraded  savage  and  turned  loose  in  the 
forest  with  no  special  aim  in  life;  and  left  to  subsist 
as  best  he  could  upon  the  wild  fruits  and  the  pro- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


369 


ceeds  of  the  chase,  until,  in  the  course  of  ages,  he 
would  learn  to  domesticate  animals,  work  metals  and 
acquire  such  knowledge  of  plants  as  would  enable 
him  to  realize  that,  by  cultivation,  he  could  develop 
“ wild  originals  ” into  domestic  plants. 

Man  was  placed  in  a garden , and  he  and  his 
descendants  were  assigned  to  a specific  work.  A 
garden  which  the  great  artist  of  the  universe  planted 
for  His  earthly  son ; a garden,  “ out  of  the  ground  ” of 
which  “made  the  Lord  God  to  grow  every  tree  that 
is  pleasant  to  the  sight  and  good  for  food;”  a garden 
which  contained  in  abundance  not  only  every  plant 
that  is  “good  for  food,”  but  one  in  which  myriads 
of  flowering  plants  contributed  their  wealth  of  beauty 
and  fragrance  to  make  the  primitive  home  of  the 
Adamic  family,  the  most  superb  estate  the  world  has 
ever  known.  Not  only  the  most  valuable  of  the  food 
plants  require  cultivation,  but  many  of  the  flowering 
plants  which  man  prizes  for  their  beauty  and  fra- 
grance, and  with  which  he  adorns  his  home,  perish 
if  neglected.  It  would  have  been  folly  on  the  part 
of  God  to  bring  into  existence  a class  of  plants  which 
require  cultivation , when  “ there  was  not  a man  to 
till  the  ground.”  Hence,  the  domestic  plants,  which 
require  cultivation,  were  brought  into  existence 
after  the  creation  of  man. 

We  accept  the  Bible  as  God’s  word;  we  also  ac- 
cept the  truths  which  scientific  research  has  discov- 
ered as  God’s  works.  But  we  insist  that  there  must 
be  no  discrepancy  between  the  teachings  of  the 
scriptures  and  those  of  the  sciences;  and  we  feel  as- 


370 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


sured  that  if  each  is  properly  interpreted  they  will 
harmonize. 

As  has  been  shown,  the  Bible  teaches  that  do- 
mestic plants,  and  agriculture  were  introduced  upon 
the  earth  immediately  after  the  creation  of  man.  On 
the  other  hand,  science  teaches  that  art  preceded 
domestic  plants,  and  consequently  agriculture,  on 
the  earth,  by  perhaps  thousands  of  years.  If  we 
adopt  the  universally  accepted  theory  that  the  ability 
to  fashion  implements  for  a particular  purpose  is  a 
character  peculiar  to  man,  how  are  we  to  reconcile 
the  teachings  of  scripture  with  those  of  science  on 
these  essential  points?  Geological  research  demon- 
strates that  the  earliest  evidences  of  art  were  found 
in  the  Palaeolithic  Age,  or  Age  of  Rough  Stone,  in 
which  agriculture  was  unknown.  The  chipped  flints 
of  that  remote  age  were  merely  the  rudely  fashioned 
weapons  of  war  and  of  the  chase.  Neither  in  the 
material  out  of  which  they  were  fashioned,  nor  in 
the  purposes  for  which  they  were  designed  were 
they  such  as  man  could  have  used  in  the  cultivation 
of  plants,  which  was  necessarily  the  initial  step  in 
his  efforts  to  subdue  the  earth.  What  manner  of 
creature  was  this  who  fashioned  the  chipped  flints 
of  the  earlier  Stone  Age?  To  which  one  of  the  four 
kinds  of  flesh  did  this  ancient  artisan  belong?  Cer- 
tainly not  to  the  flesh  of  men,  for  domestic  plants 
and  agriculture  were  unknown  to  him;  and  we  are 
plainly  taught  by  the  Bible  that  man , domestic  plants 
and  agriculture  were  introduced  upon  the  earth  al- 
most simultaneously;  Adam  was  placed  in  that  beau- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


371 


tiful  garden  which  God  'planted  eastward  in  Eden,  to 
dress  it  and  to  keep  it.  To  dress  and  keep  a garden 
requires  soil  tillage. 

The  only  way  to  reconcile  these  essential  truths 
is  to  lay  aside  our  absurd  theories,  and  the  prejudices 
which  have  grown  out  of  them,  and  accept  the  teach- 
ings of  scripture  and  of  science  that  there  is  a tool- 
making,  tool-handling  animal.  The  existence  of  such 
a creature  is  clearly  implied  in  the  Bible,  in  that  (1) 
While  man  was  designed  to  subdue  the  earth,  that  is, 
to  develop  its  resources,  and  was  assigned  to  this 
task  when  created,  it  was  not  until  after  he  had  vio- 
lated Divine  law  that  he  was  compelled  to  personally 
till  the  ground ; and  thus  eat  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his 
face.  (2)  From  this  the  inference  is  fair  that,  if 
Adam  and  his  descendants  had  never  violated  God’s 
law,  they  would  not  have  been  sentenced  to  manual 
toil;  yet  the  obligation  to  develop  the  resources  of 
the  earth,  was  binding  upon  them  from  the  moment 
of  their  assignment  to  this  task.  (3)  This  indicate 
the  necessity  for  and  demonstrates  the  existence  of 
a tool-making,  tool-handling  animal,  which,  in  the 
capacity  of  servant  could  perform  the  manual  labor 
necessary  to  develop  the  resources  of  the  earth  un- 
der man’s  control.  (4)  Man’s  appointment  in  the 
creation  to  dominion  over  all  the  earth,  demonstrates 
his  great  mental  superiority;  while  his  subsequent 
history  and  achievements  fully  confirm  it.  (5)  The 
ancient  artisan  who  fashioned  the  chipped  flints  of 
the  earlier  stone  period,  like  the  rest  of  the  animals, 
was  introduced  upon  the  earth  previous  to  the  crea- 


372 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


tion  of  man  and  the  introduction  of  domestic  plants 
and  agriculture.  (6)  Not  belonging  to  the  flesh  of 
men,  he  necessarily  belonged  to  one  of  the  other 
three  kinds  of  flesh;  and  being  a land  animal,  he  be- 
longed to  the  flesh  of  beasts.  (7)  If  there  were  no 
tool-making,  tool-handling  animal,  art,  like  domestic 
plants,  and  agriculture,  would  have  followed  the  crea- 
tion of  man.  In  this  event  the  earliest  evidences  of 
art  found  on  the  globe  would  have  been  metallic  im- 
plements, such  as  man  devises  for  the  cultivation  of 
plants,  the  erection  of  mechanical  structures,  etc. 
But  this  would  imply  that  man  was  designed  to  per- 
form the  manual  toil  as  well  as  the  mental  labor  nec- 
essary to  subdue  the  earth,  and  such  was  not  the 
case.  God  in  his  wisdom  and  love  provided  man 
with  a high  grade  ape  in  the  person  of  the  negro, 
who  is  fully  competent  to  discharge  all  the  duties  of 
servant.  The  negro,  like  man  was  ushered  into  the 
world  unprovided  with  weapons,  offensive  or  defen- 
sive; but  soon  realizing  the  necessity  for  these,  his 
mechanical  skill,  an  essential  part  of  the  equipment 
of  a servant,  enabled  him  to  fashion  for  himself  rude 
weapons  of  stone.  So  crude  were  these  chipped 
flints  that,  for  years  after  their  discovery  by  Euro- 
peans, scientists  denied  that  they  were  artificial; 
the  very  suggestion  was  ridiculed  and  denounced. 
“A  purely  geological  question  was  made  the  subject 
of  religious  controversy.”  “The  honor  of  having 
dispersed  all  doubts  and  inspired  conviction”  is 
due  to  the  French  savant,  M.  Boucher  de  Perthes. 

(Man  Before  Metals — Joly) . 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


373 


Once  the  chipped  flints  were  recognized  as  arti- 
ficial, they  were  universally  regarded  as  the  work  of 
man.  They  were  promptly  seized  upon  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  Theory  of  Development  as  the  most  posi- 
tive evidence  that  man  developed  from  the  ape  into 
an  ignorant,  degraded  savage,  with  no  ability  to 
domesticate  animals;  and  with  no  knowledge  of 
domestic  plants,  agriculture  or  metals;  a mere  hunter 
who  subsisted  on  the  wild  products  of  the  forest  and 
on  the  proceeds  of  the  chase,  with  only  such  meager 
intelligence  as  would  enable  him  to  fashion  rude 
weapons  of  stone.  With  the  theory  universally  taught 
and  accepted,  that  man  is  the  only  tool-making,  tool- 
handling animal,  and  with  the  chipped  flints  recog- 
nized as  artificial , the  conclusion  was  irresistible  that 
they  were  the  works  of  man;  and  that  all  subsequent 
art  and  civilization  traced  its  origin  to  these  humble 
beginnings.  Nothing  could  be  more  anti-scriptural. 
Hence,  nothing  more  absurd.  Man  was  created  to 
subdue  the  earth  and  have  dominion  over  the  animals; 
domestic  plants  were  God’s  special  gift  to  man;  and 
metallic  implements  are  essential  to  the  cultivation  up- 
on which  they  depend  for  existence.  Hence,  man 
never  developed  through  an  Age  of  Stone.  Thus,  the 
chipped  flints  of  the  earlier  Stone  Age,  which  furnish 
the  most  absolute  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Bible, 
have  been  seized  upon  and  used  as  the  most  positive 
evidence  of  its  falsity.  In  the  meantime  the  modern 
clergy , ignorant  of  God’s  plan  of  creation,  have  either 
accepted  this  atheism  or  ignored  the  whole  subject 
with  all  its  vital  importance.  If  we  accept  the 


374 


THE  TEMPTER  OP  EVE. 


chipped  flints  of  the  diluvium,  as  the  works  of  man , 
it  follows  that  we  must  also  accept  the  Theory  of 
Development.  In  this  event,  the  Bible , with  its  teach- 
ings of  Divine  Creation , must  go. 

A certain  amount  of  plausibility  was  given  the 
Theory  of  Development  from  the  fact  that,  in  Europe, 
the  “Palaeolithic,”  or  “Age  of  Rough  Stone”  imple- 
ments, was  immediately  followed  by  what  is  termed 
the  “ Neolithic,”  or  “ Age  of  Polished  Stone  ” imple- 
ments; and  this,  in  its  turn,  by  an  “Age  of  Bronze.” 
In  the  Age  of  Polished  Stone,  a greater  variety  of 
material  was  employed,  such  as  bone,  horn,  wood, 
etc.,  while  their  stone  implements  were  often  finely 
wrought  and  sometimes  polished.  But,  from  the  fos- 
sil remains  of  the  artisans  of  the  polished  flints  of 
the  later  Stone  Age,  we  find  that  they  were  neither 
whites  nor  negroes,  but  mixed  bloods,  in  whom,  as  a 
class,  a predominance  of  Adamic  blood,  carrying 
with  it  a corresponding  increase  of  intelligence,  en- 
abling them  to  produce  a better  class  of  implements. 

A moment’s  reflection  should  convince  us  that, 
to  successfully  conduct  an  estate  of  such  magnitude 
as  the  Garden  of  Eden,  an  immense  number  of  do- 
mestic animals  of  draught,  burden,  and  food  would 
be  required.  We  are  taught  that  “ Abel  was  a keeper 
of  sheep,”  and,  though  he  may  have  devoted  most  of 
his  attention  to  sheep  raising,  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  he  also  possessed  other  domestic  animals, 
such  as  the  horse,  ox,  swine,  etc.  Cain,  like  Adam, 
“was  a tiller  of  the  ground;”  and  his  farming  opera- 
tions, conducted  with  the  assistance  of  a greater  or 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


375 


less  number  of  negroes,  required  domestic  animals 
of  draught,  burthen,  and  food;  and  we  have  the  most 
positive  evidence  that  Cain  possessed  domestic  ani- 
mals, and  carried  them  with  him  to  the  “land  of 
Nod,”  for  his  mixed-blooded  descendants  were  cattle 
raisers.  “Jabal  * * * was  the  father  of  such 

as  dwell  in  tents,  and  of  such  as  have  cattle.”  (Gen. 
iv,  20).  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that 
these  mixed-bloods  possessed  domestic  animals, 
which  their  Adamic  ancestor  did  not  have;  on  the 
contrary,  it  would  be  in  keeping  with  the  results  of 
our  observation  to  decide  that  their  white  ancestor 
possessed  domestic  animals  which  his  mixed-blooded 
descendants  inherited. 

It  would  also  be  impossible  to  successfully  cul- 
tivate an  immense  estate  like  the  Garden  of  Eden 
without  metallic  implements;  inasmuch  as  Adam’s 
duties  in  the  Garden  of  Eden  began  as  soon  as  he 
was  assigned  to  the  task  of  cultivating  it,  he  had  no 
time  to  acquire  a knowledge  of  metals  in  the  ordinary 
way;  for  this  would  require  years  of  investigation. 
Hence,  it  is  evident  that,  among  other  things,  God 
must  have  imparted  to  Adam  a knowledge  of  metals, 
and  the  process  of  mining,  working,  and  fashioning 
them  into  implements;  and  Cain  must  have  acquired 
this  knowledge  from  Adam,  for  he  was  also  a farmer 
and  would  need  metallic  implements.  We  find  that 
Cain’s  mixed-blooded  descendants  possessed  a knowl- 
edge of  metals.  Tubal-Cain  was  “ an  instructor  of 
every  artificer  in  brass  and  iron.”  (Gen.  iv,  22). 
The  mixed-bloods  never  acquire  a knowledge  of 


376 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


metals  and  the  manner  of  mining,  working,  and 
fashioning  them  into  implements  through  their  own 
exertions;  they  inherit  them  from  their  white  an- 
cestors. Tubal-Cain  evidently  inherited  his  knowl- 
edge and  skill  from  Cain,  and  inasmuch  as  God 
never  made  any  special  bestowals  on  Cain,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  he  inherited  it  from  Adam,  to  whom  God 
gave  it.  In  all  ages  of  his  history  we  find  man  (the 
white)  in  possession  of  a knowledge  of  metals,  and 
the  manner  of  mining,  working,  and  fashioning 
them  into  implements;  on  every  continent  of  the 
earth  we  find  the  remains  of  ancient  civilizations 
which  are  crumbling  into  ruin  from  age  alone;  in  the 
beauty  and  finish  of  their  designs  these  old  ruins 
present  evidences  of  the  most  accomplished  art;  the 
decorations,  inscriptions,  and  every  hewn  stone  in 
these  old  cities  testify  to  the  fact  that  their  architects 
were  metallurgists;  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  artisans,  who  built  and  decorated  those 
ancient  structures  of  hewn  stone,  accomplished  their 
task  without  metallic  implements.  Not  only  this, 
but  we  find  that  the  knowledge  of  brass,  which  is  a 
combination  of  70  parts  copper  to  30  of  zinc,  is 
traceable  through  Tubal-Cain  and  Cain  to  Adam. 

To  acquire  a knowledge  of  metals  and  the  man- 
ner of  mining,  working,  and  fashioning  them  into 
implements;  or  combining  different  metals  to  forma 
desired  metallic  substance,  are  accomplishments  far 
beyond  the  intellectual  ability  and  inventive  skill  of 
the  negro,  or  the  mixed-bloods;  and  are  such  as  only 
the  white  is  capable  of. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


377 


In  discussing  this  question,  De  Gobineau  says: 
“ The  white  race  has  great  physical  vigor,  capacity 
and  endurance.  It  has  an  intensity  of  will  and  de- 
sire which  is  controlled  by  intellectuality.  Great 
things  are  undertaken  readily,  but  not  blindly.  It 
manifests  a strong  utilitarianism,  united  with  a pow- 
erful imagination,  which  elevates,  ennobles  and  ideal- 
izes its  practical  ideas.  The  negro  can  only  imi- 
tate, the  Chinese  only  utilize,  the  work  of  the  white; 
but  the  latter  is  abundantly  capable  of  producing 
new  works.  He  has  as  keen  a sense  of  order  as  the 
yellow  man,  not  from  a love  of  repose,  however,  but 
from  the  desire  to  protect  and  preserve  his  acquisi- 
tions. He  has  a love  of  liberty  far  more  intense  than 
exists  in  the  black  and  yellow  races,  and  clings  to 
life  more  earnestly.  His  high  sense  of  honor  is  a 
faculty  unknown  to  the  other  races,  and  springs 
from  an  exalted  sentiment  of  which  they  show  no 
indications.  His  sensations  are  less  intense  than  in 
either  black  or  yellow,  but  his  mentality  is  far  more 
developed  and  energetic.”  ( Moral  and  Intellectual 
Diversity  of  Races) . 

Here  we  have  the  most  positive  proof  that  the 
white  is  the  creature  whom  God  designed  and  equip- 
ped, mentally  and  physically,  to  develop  the  re- 
sources of  the  earth,  and  have  dominion  over  the 
animals;  and  the  past  history  of  civilization  fully 
confirms  it;  the  white  is  to-day,  what  he  has  been  in 
all  ages  of  his  history — the  great  building,  develop- 
ing, power  of  the  earth.  Hence,  when  in  some  path- 
less jungle,  or  on  some  deserted  plain,  or  in  some 


378 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


isolated  valley,  or  perhaps  on  some  island  of  the  sea, 
we  discover  the  remains  of  some  ancient  civilization 
which  presents  even  in  its  ruins  the  evidences  of  fine 
architectural  skill  and  taste  on  the  part  of  its  build- 
ers, we  may  confidently  say:  This  is  the  work  of  the 

white.  Mr.  Morris  says:  “It  may  be  remarked  that 

all  the  savage  tribes  of  the  earth  belong  to  the  Negro 
or  Mongolian  races.  No  negro  civilization  has  ever 
appeared.  No  Mongolian  one  has  ever  greatly  de- 
veloped. On  the  other  hand,  the  Caucasian  is  pre- 
eminently the  man  of  civilization.  No  traveler  or 
historian  records  a savage  tribe  of  Caucasian  stock.” 
( The  Aryan  Race) . 

We  often  hear  modern  theologians  assert  that 
“Adam  was  a red  man.”  In  explanation  of  this  we 
are  told  that  in  the  Hebrew,  “Adam  signifies  red.” 
This  modern  idea  could  only  have  been  conceived  in 
the  grossest  ignorance,  strongly  tinged  with  the  most 
unblushing  infidelity.  The  Hebrew  was  not  the 
language  of  Eden.  The  Bible  plainly  teaches  that 
the  language  of  Adam  was  transmitted  to  his  post- 
diluvian descendants  through  Noah;  and  that  for  a 
considerable  period  after  the  Deluge  it  was  the  one 
universal  language  of  the  globe.  “ The  whole  earth 
was  of  one  language  and  one  speech.”  (Gen.  ii,  1). 
But  the  Bible  also  teaches  that  at  the  Tower  of  Babel 
their  original  language  was  broken  up  into  a number 
of  languages,  of  which  the  Hebrew  is  one.  Hence, 
the  mere  fact  that  in  the  Hebrew  the  term  “Adam” 
signifies  red,  is  no  evidence,  whatever,  that  it  had 
any  such  significance  in  the  original  language  of 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


379 


man.  On  the  contrary,  if,  in  the  original  language 
of  man,  the  term  Adam  had  any  significance  as  to 
complexion,  all  the  facts  indicate  that  it  signified 
white;  for  white  was,  unquestionably,  the  complexion 
of  Adam. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  this  work  we  have  shown 
that  the  most  ancient  and  reliable  traditions  of  men 
assert  that  Adam  was  the  father  of  arts  and  letters ; 
that  he  wrote  a book  of  precepts  which  God  gave  him 
in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  Hence,  Adam  was  the  first 
author;  and  the  Bible  plainly  teaches  that  he  was  the 
first  agriculturist;  the  first  horticulturist;  the  first 
keeper  and  breeder  of  domestic  animals;  the  first  me- 
chanic; for  it  required  the  highest  mechanical  talent 
and  the  finest  engineering  skill  to  construct  the  irri- 
gating system  of  the  Garden  of  Eden.  Adam’s  pos- 
session of  these  great  intellectual  gifts  should  occasion 
us  no  surprise,  when  we  pause  to  reflect  that  every 
intellectual  faculty  displayed  by  the  men  of  this  and 
other  ages,  were  inherited  from  Adam,  upon  whom 
they  were  Divine  bestowals.  With  God  as  his  in- 
structor, Adam  had  opportunities  for  acquiring 
knowledge  which  none  of  his  descendants  have  en- 
joyed. During  his  stay  in  Eden,  it  was  Adam’s  high 
privilege  to  imbibe  wisdom  direct  from  the  Fountain 
of  all  Wisdom;  and  the  record  of  his  achievements, 
as  above  set  forth,  indicates  that  he  profited  by  it. 
Hence,  all  the  facts  indicate  that,  in  addition  to  being 
the  most  intellectual,  Adam  and  Eve,  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden,  were  the  most  learned,  cultured,  and  re- 
fined people  that  ever  graced  the  earth. 

In  this  professedly  Christian  age  we  hear  much 


380 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


of  the  “ great  intellectual  development  and  progress 
made  by  the  human  race  in  modern  times.”  In  ad- 
dition to  the  atheism  openly  expressed  in  the  term 
“human  race,”  this  statement  carries  with  it  the 
implication  that  we  have  developed  higher  and  have 
progressed  further,  intellectually,  from  our  “animal 
ancestors”  than  the  ancients  had.  But  even  disre- 
garding this  atheism,  expressed  and  implied,  and 
confining  the  question  to  man  (the  white) , we  find 
nothing  in  the  scriptures,  the  sciences,  profane  his- 
tory, tradition  or  the  evidence  of  the  old  civilization 
to  sustain  it.  On  the  contrary,  these  are  all  against 
it.  The  ancients  were  familiar  with  the  sciences, 
especially  the  science  of  astronomy;  we  have  shown 
that  tradition  asserts  that  in  the  days  of  Enoch,  the 
seventh  from  Adam,  the  constellations  were  already 
divided  and  named.  On  every  continent  of  the 
earth  we  find  the  remains  of  superb  civilizations, 
which  testify  to  the  fact  that  the  ancients  were  the 
most  accomplished  artisans.  The  architectural  re- 
mains of  the  ancients,  even  in  their  ruins,  and  such 
fragments  of  their  literature  as  have  descended  to 
us,  at  least  equal  the  best  products  of  modern  minds. 
What  have  we  in  architecture  which,  in  point  of 
solidity,  purity  of  design,  and  in  the  elegance  and 
beauty  of  its  finish,  will  equal  that  of  ancient  Greece, 
Egypt,  India,  the  Island  of  Java,  or  Central  America? 
What  have  we  in  literature  that  equals  the  Bible? 
In  addition  to  all  this  we  are  reminded  that  if  the 
stream  of  humanity  that  flowed  out  from  Adam  and 
Eve  has  risen  above  its  source,  it’s  the  first  stream 
that  ever  did. 


THE  TEMPTER  OP  EYE. 


381 


Further  evidence  of  the  culture  and  refinement 
of  Adam  and  Eve,  and  their  immediate  descendants, 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  Cain’s  mixed-blooded  de- 
scendants possessed  the  harp  and  the  organ.  “ Jubal 
* * * was  the  father  of  all  such  as  handle  the 

harp  and  the  organ.”  (Gen.  iv,  21).  Their  posses- 
sion of  the  harp  and  the  organ,  two  instruments 
that  have  never  been  improved  upon,  leads  us  to 
infer  that  they  possessed  other  musical  instruments. 
Their  possession  of  these  fine  musical  instruments 
clearly  indicates  the  culture  and  refinement  which 
existed  in  the  sixth  generation  of  the  mixed-blooded 
descendants  of  Cain.  And  no  one  would  suppose 
that  the  pure-blooded  descendants  of  Adam,  in  the 
time  of  Seth,  were  less  cultured  and  accomplished 
than  the  mulatto  descendants  of  Cain.  This  indi- 
cates that  the  culture  and  refinement  of  the  whites 
and  mixed-bloods  of  that  remote  period  was  much 
the  same  as  that  enjoyed  by  the  most  cultivated 
classes  of  whites  and  mulattoes  in  our  day;  yet  if 
we  were  to  enter  the  home  of  some  rich,  educated 
mulatto  in  our  community  and  found  that  he  pos- 
sessed the  harp  or  the  organ,  or  other  fine  musical 
instruments,  and  that  he  and  his  family  handled 
those  instruments  with  consumate  skill,  it  would 
never  occur  to  us  that  they  had  invented  them;  we 
would  know  that  the  whites  invented  them;  neither 
would  we  suppose  that  they  had  inherited  their  fine 
musical  talent  from  the  negro,  since  he  never  had  it 
to  transmit;  we  would  know  that  their  musical  tal- 
ent was  inherited  from  their  white  ancestors. 

Where  did  the  mixed-blooded  descendants  of 


382 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


Cain  obtain  their  knowledge  of  the  art  of  music,  and 
the  art  of  fashioning  and  handling  such  instruments 
as  the  harp  and  the  organ?  Was  this  knowledge  the 
result  of  development  in  the  course  of  a few  genera- 
tions? The  thought  is  inadmissible;  and  would  be 
so  pronounced  by  the  most  ardent  advocate  of  the 
theory  of  development.  No  mixed-blood  ever  de- 
veloped the  art  of  music,  nor  invented  such  in- 
struments as  the  harp  and  organ;  though  they  can 
be  taught  to  construct  and  handle  almost  any  instru- 
ment. 

Inasmuch  as  the  knowledge  of  the  art  of  music, 
and  the  art  of  fashioning  and  handling  musical  in- 
struments, which  the  mulatto  descendants  of  Cain 
possessed,  was  not  the  result  of  development,  we 
have  no  alternative  than  to  decide  that  they  inher- 
ited them  from  their  white  ancestor,  Cain;  and  inas- 
much as  there  were  no  special  Divine  bestowals 
upon  Cain,  we  must  decide  that  he  inherited  from 
Adam  the  fine  musical  talent,  and  perhaps  the 
knowledge  of  musical  instruments,  which  he  trans- 
mitted to  his  mulatto  offspring.  Thus  we  find  that 
musical  talent,  in  its  highest  state  of  perfection,  like 
every  other  exalted  characteristic  which  man  pos- 
sesses, is  traceable  to  Adam,  upon  whom  God  be- 
stowed it.  Hence,  it  requires  no  stretch  of  the  im- 
agination to  suppose  that  the  charms  of  beauty  and 
fragrance,  which  characterized  the  primitive  home 
of  our  first  parents  in  Eden,  was  heightened  by  their 
innocent  songs  of  joy  and  praise  blending  with  the 
soft,  sweet  strains  of  instrumental  music. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


The  Fall  of  Man. 

‘‘Oh  lovely,  happy,  blessed,  immortal  pair! 
Pleased  with  the  present,  full  of  glorious  hope! 
But  short!  the  song  that  sings  their  bliss! 
Henceforth,  the  history  of  man  grows  dark: 
Shade  after  shade  of  deepening  gloom  descends, 
And  innocence  laments  her  robes  defiled. 

Who  farther  sings,  must  change  the  pleasant  lyre 
To  heavy  notes  of  woe.  Why? — dost  thou  ask, 
Surprised?  The  answer  will  surprise  thee  more. 
Man  sinned;  tempted,  he  ate  the  guarded  tree; 
Tempted  of  whom  thou  afterward  shall  hear. 
Audacious,  unbelieving,  proud,  ungrateful, 

He  ate  the  interdicted  fruit  and  fell.” 

— Pollok. 

“Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtle  than  any 
beast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord  God  had  made. 
And  he  said  unto  the  woman,  Yea,  hath  God  said, 
Ye  shall  not  eat  of  every  tree  of  the  garden?  And 
the  woman  said  unto  the  serpent,  We  may  eat  of  the 
fruit  of  the  trees  of  the  garden:  But  of  the  fruit  of 

the  tree  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  God 
hath  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither  shall  ye 
touch  it,  lest  ye  die.  And  the  serpent  said  unto  the 
woman,  Ye  shall  not  surely  die:  For  God  doth 

know  that  in  the  day  ye  eat  thereof,  then  your  eyes 

383 


384 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as  Gods,  knowing 
good  and  evil.  And  when  the  woman  saw  that  the 
tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant  to 
the  eyes,  and  a tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise, 
she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and  gave 
also  unto  her  husband  with  her;  and  he  did  eat. 
And  the  eyes  of  them  both  were  opened,  and  they 
knew  that  they  were  naked;  and  they  sewed  fig 
leaves  together,  and  made  themselves  aprons.  And 
they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in  the 
garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day:  And  Adam  and  his 
wife  hid  themselves  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord 
God  amongst  the  trees  of  the  garden.  And  the  Lord 
called  unto  Adam  and  said,  Where  art  thou?  And 
he  said,  I heard  thy  voice  in  the  garden,  and  I was 
afraid,  because  I was  naked;  and  I hid  myself.  And 
He  said,  Who  told  thee  that  thou  wast  naked?  Hast 
thou  eaten  of  the  tree,  whereof  I commanded  thee 
thou  shouldst  not  eat?  And  the  man  said,  The 
woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me,  she  gave 
me  of  the  tree,  and  I did  eat.  And  the  Lord  said 
unto  the  woman,  What  is  this  that  thou  hast  done? 
And  the  woman  said,  The  serpent  beguiled  me,  and 
I did  eat. 

“ And  the  Lord  God  said  unto  the  serpent,  Be- 
cause thou  hast  done  this,  thou  art  cursed  above  all 
cattle,  and  above  every  beast  of  the  field;  upon  thy 
belly  shalt  thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the 
days  of  thy  life:  And  I will  put  enmity  between 

thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her 
seed;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise 
his  heel. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


385 


“ Unto  the  woman  He  said,  I will  greatly  multi- 
ply thy  sorrow  and  thy  conception;  in  sorrow  thou 
shalt  bring  forth  children;  and  thy  desire  shall  be  to 
thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee. 

“ And  unto  Adam  he  said,  Because  thou  hast 
hearkened  unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and  hast  eaten 
of  the  tree  whereof  I commanded  thee,  saying,  Thou 
shalt  not  eat  of  it:  cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake; 
in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life; 
thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee: 
and  thou  shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field;  in  the  sweat 
of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto 
the  ground;  for  out  of  it  wast  thou  taken:  for  dust 
thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return. 

“ And  Adam  called  his  wife’s  name  Eve;  because 
she  was  the  mother  of  all  living.  Unto  Adam  also 
and  to  his  wife  did  the  Lord  God  make  coats  of 
skins,  and  clothed  them. 

“ And  the  Lord  said,  Behold,  the  man  is  become 
as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil:  and  now  lest  he 
put  forth  his  hand,  and  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life, 
and  eat,  and  live  forever:  therefore  the  Lord  sent 
him  forth  from  the  Garden  of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground 
from  whence  he  was  taken.”  (Gen.  iii,  1,  2,  3,  etc.) . 

In  commenting  on  the  first  verse  of  Genesis,  in 
his  attempt  to  identify  the  Tempter  of  Eve,  Dr. 
Adam  Clark,  says:  “Verse  1.  (Now  the  serpent  was 
more  subtle.)  We  have  here  one  of  the  most  difficult 
as  well  as  the  most  important  narratives  in  the  whole 
book  of  God.  The  last  chapter  ended  with  a short, 
but  striking  account  of  the  perfection  and  felicity  of 
the  first  human  beings,  and  this  opens  with  an  ac- 


386 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


count  of  their  transgression,  degradation,  and  ruin. 
That  man  is  in  a fallen  state,  the  history  of  the  world, 
with  that  of  the  life  and  miseries  of  every  human 
being,  establishes  beyond  successful  contradiction. 
But  how,  and  by  what  agency,  was  this  brought 
about?  Here  is  a great  mystery;  and  I may  appeal 
to  all  persons  who  have  read  the  various  comments 
that  have  been  written  on  the  Mosaic  account, 
whether  they  have  ever  yet  been  satisfied  on  this 
part  of  the  subject,  though  convinced  of  the  fact  it- 
self. Who  was  the  serpent?  Of  what  kind?  In  what 
way  did  he  seduce  the  first  happy  pair?  These 
are  questions  which  remain  yet  to  he  answered.  The 
whole  account  is  either  a simple  narration  of  facts,  or 
it  is  an  allegory.  If  it  be  a historical  relation,  its  lit- 
eral meaning  should  be  sought  out;  if  it  be  an  alle- 
gory, no  attempt  should  be  made  to  explain  it,  as  it 
would  require  a distinct  revelation  to  ascertain  the 
sense  in  which  it  should  be  understood,  for  fanciful 
illustrations  are  endless.  Believing  it  to  be  a simple 
relation  of  facts  capable  of  satisfactory  explanation, 
I shall  take  it  up  on  this  ground,  and  by  a careful 
examination  of  the  original  text,  endeavor  to  fix  the 
meaning  and  show  the  propriety  and  consistency  of 
the  Mosaic  account  of  the  fall  of  man.  The  chief  diffi- 
culty in  the  account  is  found  in  the  question:  Who 
was  the  agent  employed  in  the  seduction  of  our  first 
parents. 

“ The  word  in  the  text  which  we,  following  the 
Septuagint,  translate  serpent,  is  * * * nachash; 

and,  according  to  Bextorf  and  others,  has  three  mean 
ings  in  scripture. 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


387 


“1.  It  signifies  to  view  or  observe  attentively,  etc. 

“ 2.  It  signifies  brass,  brazen,  and  fetters  of  brass, 
and  in  several  places,  steel.  * * * 

“ 3.  It  signifies  a serpent,  but  of  what  kind  is 
not  determined.  * * * In  Eccles.  x,  11,  the  crea- 

ture called  nachash,  of  whatever  sort,  is  compared  to 
the  babbler.  * * * 

■ “ We  have  already  seen  that  * * * nachash 

signifies  to  view  attentively , to  acquire  knowledge  or 
experience  by  attentive  observation;  * * * I have 

learned  by  experience;  and  this  seems  to  be  the  most 
general  meaning  in  the  Bible.  The  original  word  is 
by  the  Septuagint  translated  * * * a serpent, 

not  because  this  was  its  fixed,  determinate  meaning 
in  the  sacred  writings,  but  because  it  was  the  best 
that  occurred  to  the  translators,  and  they  do  not  seem 
to  have  given  themselves  much  trouble  to  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  original,  for  they  have  ren- 
dered the  word  as  variously  as  our  translators  have 
done,  or  rather  our  translators  have  followed  them, 
as  they  give  nearly  the  same  significations  found  in 
the  Septuagint.  * * * From  the  Septuagint, 

therefore,  we  can  expect  no  light,  nor  indeed  from 
any  other  of  the  ancient  versions,  which  are  all  sub- 
sequent to  the  Septuagint,  and  some  of  them  actually 
made  from  it.  In  all  this  uncertainty,  it  is  natural 
for  a serious  inquirer  after  truth  to  look  everywhere 
for  information.  And  in  such  an  inquiry  the  Arabic 
may  be  expected  to  afford  some  help,  from  its  great 
similarity  to  the  Hebrew.  A root  in  this  language, 
very  nearly  similar  to  that  in  the  text,  seems  to 
throw  considerable  light  on  the  subject.  * * * 


388 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


chanas  or  khanasa  signifies  he  departed,  drew  off,  lay 
hid,  seduced,  slunk  away;  from  this  root  come  akhnas, 
* * * khanasa  and  khanars,  which  all  signifies  an 

ape,  or  satyrus,  or  any  creature  of  the  simia  or  ape 
genus.  It  is  very  remarkable  also  that  from  the  same 
root  comes  khanas,  the  devil,  which  appelative  he 
bears  to  that  meaning  of  khanasa,  he  drew  off,  se- 
duced, etc.,  because  he  draws  men  off  from  righteous- 
ness, seduces  them  from  their  obedience  to  God,  etc., 
etc.  * * * Is  it  not  strange  that  the  devil  and 

the  ape  should  have  the  same  name,  derived  from 
the  same  root,  and  that  root  so  very  similar  to  the 
word  in  the  text?  But  let  us  return  and  consider 
what  is  said  of  the  creature  in  question.  Now  the 
nachash  was  more  subtle  arum,  more  wise,  cunning, 
or  prudent,  than  any  beast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord 
God  had  made.  In  this  account  we  find:  (1)  That 

whatever  nachash  was,  he  stood  at  the  head  of  all  in- 
ferior animals  for  wisdom  and  understanding.  (2) 
That  he  walked  erect,  for  this  is  necessarily  implied  in 
his  punishment — on  thy  belly  (i.  e.,  on  all  fours) , 
shalt  thou  go.  (3)  That  he  was  endowed  with  the  gift 
of  speech,  for  a conversation  is  here  related  between 
him  and  the  woman.  (4)  That  he  was  also  endowed 
with  the  gift  of  reason,  for  we  find  him  reasoning 
and  disputing  with  Eve.  (5)  That  these  things  were 
common  to  this  creature,  the  woman  no  doubt  having 
often  seen  him  walk  erect,  talk  and  reason,  and  there- 
fore she  testifies  no  kind  of  surprise  when  he  accosts 
her  in  the  language  related  in  the  text:  and,  indeed, 
from  the  manner  in  which  this  is  introduced,  it  ap- 
pears to  be  only  a part  of  a conversation  that  had 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


389 


passed  between  them  on  the  occasion:  Yea,  hath 

God  said,  etc. 

“ Had  this  creature  never  been  known  to  speak 
before  his  addressing  the  woman  at  this  time  and  on 
this  subject,  it  could  not  have  failed  to  excite  her 
surprise,  and  to  have  filled  her  with  caution,  though 
from  the  purity  and  innocence  of  her  nature,  she 
might  have  been  incapable  of  being  affected  with 
fear.  Now,  I apprehend  that  none  of  these  things 
can  be  spoken  of  a serpent  of  any  species.  (1)  None 
of  these  ever  did  or  ever  can  walk  erect.  The  tales 
we  have  heard  of  two-footed  and  four-footed  serpents 
are  justly  exploded  by  every  judicious  naturalist, 
and  are  utterly  unworthy  of  credit.  The  very  name 
serpent  comes  from  serpo,  to  creep,  and  therefore  to 
such,  it  could  be  neither  curse  nor  punishment  to  go 
on  their  bellies,  i.  e.,  to  creep  on,  as  they  had  done 
from  their  creation,  and  must  do  while  their  race 
endures.  (2)  They  have  no  organs  for  speech  or  any 
kind  of  articulate  sound;  they  can  only  hiss.  It  is 
true  that  an  ass,  by  miraculous  influence,  may  speak; 
but  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  there  was  any  mir- 
aculous interference  here.  God  did  not  qualify  this 
creature  with  speech  for  the  occasion,  and  it  is  not 
intimated  that  there  was  any  other  agent  that  did  it; 
on  the  contrary,  the  text  intimates  that  speech  and 
reason  were  natural  to  the  nachash;  and  is  it  not  in 
reference  to  this  the  inspired  penman  says:  The 

nachash  was  more  subtle  or  intelligent  than  all  the  beasts 
of  the  field  that  the  Lord  God  had  made  f Nor  can  I 
find  that  the  serpentine  genus  are  remarkable  for  in- 
telligence. It  is  true  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent  has 


390 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


passed  into  a proverb,  but  I cannot  see  on  what  it  is 
founded,  except  in  reference  to  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion, when  the  nachash,  which  we  translate  serpent, 
following  the  Septuagint,  shows  so  much  intelligence 
and  cunning;  and  it  is  very  probable,  that  our  Lord  al- 
ludes to  this  very  place  when  He  exhorts  His  disciples 
to  be  wise — prudent  or  intelligent  as  serpents,  and  it 
is  worthy  of  remark  that  He  used  the  same  term 
employed  by  the  Septuagint  in  the  text  in  question: 
The  serpent  was  more  prudent  or  intelligent  than  all 
the  beasts,  etc.  All  these  things  considered,  we 
are  obliged  to  seek  for  some  other  word  to  designate 
the  nachash  in  the  text,  than  the  word  serpent,  which, 
on  every  view  of  the  subject,  appears  to  me  inefficient 
and  inapplicable.  We  have  seen  above  that  Jchanas , 
alchnas,  and  Jchanros,  signify  a creature  of  the  ape 
or  satyrus  kind.  We  have  seen  that  the  meaning  of 
the  root  is,  he  lay  hid,  seduced,  slunk  away,  etc.,  and 
that  khanas  means  the  devil,  as  the  inspirer  of  evil, 
and  seducer  from  God  and  truth.  See  Gollins  and 
Wilmet.  It  therefore  appears  to  me  that  a creature 
of  the  ape  or  orang  outang  kind  is  here  intended. 

“Should  any  person  who  may  read  this  note 
object  against  my  conclusions,  because  apparently 
derived  from  an  Arabic  word  which  is  not  exactly 
similar  to  the  Hebrew,  though  to  those  who  under- 
stand both  languages  the  similarity  will  be  striking, 
yet,  as  I do  not  insist  on  the  identity  of  the  terms, 
though  important  consequences  have  been  derived 
from  less  likely  etymologies,  he  is  welcome  to  throw 
the  whole  of  this  out  of  the  account.  He  may  then 
take  up  the  Hebrew  root  only,  which  signifies  to 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


391 


gaze , to  view  attentively , pry  into,  inquire  narrowly, 
etc.,  and  consider  the  passage  that  appears  to  com- 
pare the  nachash  to  the  babbler,  ( Eccles . x,  2) , and  he 
will  soon  find,  if  he  have  any  acquaintance  with 
creatures  of  this  genus,  that  for  earnest,  attentive 
watching,  looking,  etc.,  and  for  chattering  or  babbling, 
they  have  no  fellows  in  the  animal  world.  Indeed, 
the  ability  and  propensity  to  chatter  is  all  they  have 
left,  according  to  the  above  hypothesis,  of  their  orig- 
inal gift  of  speech,  of  which  I suppose  them  to  have 
been  deprived  at  the  fall  as  a part  of  their  punish- 
ment.” {Clark,  Commentary,  Vol.  I,  pp.  45,  46,  etc.). 

We  have  quoted  at  length  from  the  above  named 
work  (1)  because  its  author,  Dr.  Clark,  was  a mod- 
ern clergyman — a minister  in  the  Methodist  Church. 
(2)  Because  this  distinguished  commentator  utterly 
repudiated  and  clearly  disproves  the  modern  theory 
that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  a snake.  (3)  Because 
he  proves  that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  an  ape,  which 
habitually  walked  erect,  talked  and  reasoned , as  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  woman  was  not  in  the  least 
alarmed,  or  even  surprised,  when  he  engaged  her  in 
the  conversation  recorded  in  the  text;  on  the  con- 
trary, she  was  evidently  accustomed  to  seeing  this 
animal  walk  erect,  talk  and  reason;  consequently 
she  felt  no  surprise  when  he  addressed  a question 
to  her,  and  manifested  no  hesitancy  in  replying  to 
him.  The  whole  transaction  shows  that  their  con- 
versations were  common  occurrences. 

Dr.  Clark  manifested  a commendable  independ- 
ence of  thought  and  action  when  he  abandoned  the 
absurd  theory  of  the  modern  clergy  that  the  tempter 


392 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


of  Eve  was  a snake;  he  made  a creditable  advance 
upon  the  snake  theory  when  he  proved  the  tempter 
of  Eve  an  ape;  yet  it  is  at  once  a matter  of  surprise 
and  regret  that  after  thus  advancing  so  far  in  the 
right  direction,  he  should  have  stopped  at  one  of 
the  so-called  anthropoids — the  orang — when  a step 
further  would  have  taken  him  to  the  negro,  the 
identical  ape  he  was  seeking.  The  negro  meets  all 
the  requirements  of  the  case,  and  he  is  the  only  ani- 
mal that  does;  he  possesses  the  erect  posture,  artic- 
ulate speech,  and  more  reasoning  capacity  than  any 
other  animal;  and  these  characteristics  place  him  at 
the  head  of  the  apes,  and  consequently  “at  the  head 
of  all  inferior  animals  for  wisdom  and  understand- 
ing.” Besides,  the  negro  is  an  inveterate  talker — 
“babbler” — and  is  withal  one  of  the  noisest  ani- 
mals in  the  world. 

The  negro  is  the  only  animal  that  could  have 
understood  the  relation  between  God  and  man,  and 
the  relations  between  man  and  the  plants  and  ani- 
mals in  the  Garden  of  Eden;  and  the  knowledge 
of  these  relations  was  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  the  tempter  of  Eve;  in  addition  to  understanding 
these  relations  which  God  established,  the  negro 
is  the  only  animal  with  mental  capacity  sufficient 
to  devise  a scheme  to  deceive  man  into  disregard- 
ing these  relations,  and  thus  violate  the  laws  of  God; 
and  all  these  things  the  negro  did. 

The  orang,  like  the  snake,  would  be  incapable 
of  understanding  the  relations  which  God  estab- 
lished between  Himself  and  man,  and  those  between 
man  and  the  plants  and  animals;  and  being  ignorant 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


393 


of  the  existence  of  these  relations,  it  would  never  oc- 
cur to  either  the  snake  or  the  orang,  to  devise  a 
scheme  to  deceive  man  into  disturbing  these  rela- 
tions, and  thus  violate  the  laws  of  God.  Neither 
could  these  animals,  or  any  animal,  except  the  ne- 
gro, execute  such  a scheme  for  the  want  of  articu- 
late speech.  Hence,  we  fail  to  see  that  the  embar- 
rassment under  which  Dr.  Clark  labored  on  account 
of  the  fact  that  the  Bible  accredits  the  tempter  of 
Eve  with  articulate  speech,  was  in  the  least  modified 
by  his  exchange  of  the  snake  for  the  orang.  In  his 
efforts  to  relieve  himself  of  this  embarrassment,  Dr. 
Clark  advances  the  theory  that  all  the  orangs  orig- 
inally possessed  the  “ gift  of  speech,”  but  “ at  the 
fall”  God  “deprived”  them  of  this  gift,  “as  a part  of 
their  punishment.”  But  this  theory  finds  no  sup- 
port in  scripture;  on  the  contrary  the  text  is  clearly 
against  it. 

The  Bible  plainly  states  that  just  three  individuals 
participated  in  the  fall  of  man;  and  names  Adam, 
Eve,  and  nachash  or  serpent , as  the  guilty  parties. 
The  acts  which  each  of  these  individuals  committed 
are  clearly  stated,  as  are  the  punishments  which  God 
meted  out  to  each  of  them.  There  is  absolutely  noth- 
ing in  the  text  to  justify  Dr.  Clark  in  entertaining  the 
remotest  suspicion  that  God  “deprived”  the  tempter 
of  Eve  of  the  “gift  of  speech;”  the  individual  ape, 
nachash  or  serpent , which  tempted  Eve,  was  one  of 
many  of  its  kind;  and  all  of  these  “walked  erect, 
talked  and  reasoned,”  but  they  were  not  parties  to 
the  serpent’s  offense,  and  certainly  there  is  nothing 
in  the  text  to  indicate  that  these  unoffending  ani- 


394 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


mals  were  punished  in  any  way.  As  a matter  of 
fact,  nachash  was  one  of  many  negroes  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden;  nachash  offended  God  and  was  terribly 
punished,  by  being  compelled  to  go  on  its  belly;  but 
it  was  not  deprived  of  speech,  and  its  unoffending 
kindred  were  not  deprived  of  their  erect  posture,  ar- 
ticulate speech,  etc.,  for  the  negro  of  to-day,  and  of 
all  past  ages,  has  possessed  these  characteristics. 
For  example:  Before  the  late  sectional  war  in  the 
United  States,  many  men  in  the  Southern  States 
owned  negroes;  if  one  of  his  negroes  offended,  his 
master  punished  him,  but  the  rest  of  his  negroes 
who  had  not  offended  were  not  punished;  it  would 
have  been  a grave  injustice  to  have  punished  them; 
is  God  less  just  than  man? 

Dr.  Clark  observed  that  a part  of  the  punish- 
ment which  God  inflicted  on  the  tempter  of  Eve, 
was  directed  at  this  animal’s  'posture,  for  he  says: 
“ that  he  walked  erect,  for  this  is  necessarily  implied 
in  his  punishment — on  thy  belly  ( i . e.,  on  all  fours) 
shalt  thou  go.”  Man  and  the  negro  possess  the  erect 
posture,  and  “go”  upon  their  two  legs;  the  apes  be- 
low the  negro  may  walk  erect  at  will,  but  they  habit- 
ually support  their  bodies  with  both  their  arms  and 
legs  in  walking,  and  this  somevThat  resembles  the 
“cattle;”  the  “cattle”  or  quadrupeds  “go”  on  all 
four  of  their  legs;  there  are  many  of  the  small  ani- 
mals among  the  “creeping  things”  which  have  a 
greater  or  less  number  of  legs  upon  which  they 
“go;”  but  among  the  “creeping  things,”  there  are  a 
number  of  animals,  such  as  worms,  snakes,  etc., 
which  have  no  legs,  and  these  “go”  on  their  bellies; 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


395 


the  latter  are  the  lowest,  and  in  point  of  posture  the 
most  degraded  of  the  creeping  things.  We  have 
shown  that  the  “ beast  of  the  field  ” and  the  negro 
are  identical.  Hence,  God’s  curse  upon  the  tempter 
of  Eve,  “ cursed  art  thou  above  every  beast  of  the 
field,”  deprived  this  creature  of  the  erect  posture. 
“Cursed  art  thou  above  all  cattle”  prevented  this 
creature  from  going  on  all  fours.  “ On  thy  belly 
shalt  thou  go”  degraded  this  creature  in  point  of 
posture  to  the  lowest  of  the  “creeping  things.”  This 
curse  wrought  the  most  radical  change  in  the  posture 
of  this  negro,  and  was  a terrible  punishment.  But 
this  would  not  have  been  the  case  if  the  tempter  of 
Eve  had  been  a snake.  The  only  way  a snake  can 
“go”  is  on  its  belly.  Hence,  God’s  curse,  “on  thy 
belly  shalt  thou  go,”  would  not  have  wrought  any 
change  in  its  posture,  nor  occasioned  it  the  least  in- 
convenience or  suffering. 

The  opening  verse  of  the  narrative  of  the  fall 
plainly  shows  that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  a beast  of 
the  field:  “Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtle  than 

any  beast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord  God  had 
made.”  Observe  (1)  that  here  there  is  a comparison 
drawn.  (2)  That  this  comparison  is  drawn  between 
the  tempter  of  Eve  and  the  other  beasts  of  the  field. 
(3)  That  the  comparison  drawn  in  this  text  is  not 
between  the  tempter  of  Eve  and  the  animals  in  gen- 
eral, but  is  confined  strictly  to  the  tempter  of  Eve 
and  the  other  beasts  of  the  field:  “Now  the  serpent 
was  more  subtle  than  any  beast  of  the  field  which 
the  Lord  God  had  made.”  It  must  be  admitted  that, 
the  fact  that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  a beast  of  the 


396 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


field,  would  not  have  been  more  clearly  indicated 
had  the  text  read:  Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtle 
than  any  other  beast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord  God 
had  made. 

In  a previous  chapter  we  have  shown  that  the 
term  “ beast  of  the  field  ” is  not  a general  term,  but 
that  it  is  a term  applied  to  a particular  race  of  the 
ape  species;  and  with  the  aid  of  comparative  anato- 
my, we  have  identified  the  negro  as  the  biblical 
“beast  of  the  field.”  Hence,  if  our  text  with  its 
terms  had  been  translated  into  English,  it  would 
read:  Now  nachash,  or  serpent,  was  more  subtle 

than  any  negro  which  the  Lord  God  had  made.  Na- 
chash, translated  serpent , in  our  English  version  of 
the  Bible,  was  merely  the  name  given  this  negro  by 
Adam,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  other  negroes  in 
the  Garden  of  Eden.  “Adam  gave  names  to  all  cat- 
tle, and  to  every  beast  of  the  field .” 

It  is  evident  that  all  the  embarrasment  under 
which  the  world  has  so  long  labored  in  its  efforts  to 
identify  the  tempter  of  Eve,  is  due  to  the  following 
causes:  (1)  That  about  eighteen  centuries  ago  all 

knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  ape  is  a biped  was 
lost  to  the  world.  (2)  That  at  about  the  same  time 
the  world  lost  all  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the 
negro  is  an  ape;  that  God  designed  him  as  a ser- 
vant to  man,  and  that  he  was  owned  and  used  by  the 
ancients  as  a servant;  that  he  is  referred  to  in  scrip- 
ture as  the  beast  of  the  field;  and  that  his  leading 
characteristics  are  a matter  of  scriptural  record;  prior 
to  these  events,  monotheism  and  a belief  in  the  in- 
spiration of  the  scriptures  was  practically  confined 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


397 


to  the  Jews;  the  rest  of  the  world,  with  perhaps  the 
exception  of  an  individual  or  a family  here  and 
there,  were  abandoned  to  atheism  and  polytheism; 
and  among  the  Jews  atheism  and  polytheism  pre- 
vailed to  some  extent. 

When  Christianity  superseded  Judaism  the 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  ape  is  a biped,  and  the 
negro  an  ape,  was  restored  to  the  world;  and  the 
Saviour  and  His  deciples  employed  every  argument 
at  their  command  to  eradicate  from  the  minds  of  men 
the  false  theories  of  atheism,  and  convince  them  of 
the  truth  of  the  scripture;  but  their  teachings  sur- 
vived only  for  a season ; soon  after  the  death  of  the 
last  of  the  apostles  the  followers  of  the  Saviour  split 
up  into  a number  of  warring  factions,  which  gradually 
lost  all  true  knowledge  of  the  teachings  of  the  Bible; 
in  this  condition  they  fell  an  easy  prey  to  the  atheism 
of  the  age;  the  theory  of  evolution  which  teaches 
that  the  negro  is  a “ lower  race  of  the  human  species,” 
was  blended  with  the  teachings  of  scripture,  and  was 
universally  taught  and  accepted;  under  these  de- 
moralizing conditions,  continued  for  generations,  all 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  negro  is  an  ape,  was 
lost,  and,  under  the  influence  of  atheism,  he  came  to 
be  universally  regarded  as  a man.  Then  God,  in 
His  wrath  and  disgust,  plunged  the  whole  world  of 
mankind  into  that  distressing  period  of  ignorance, 
superstition,  and  crime  which  is  fitly  termed  the 
Dark  Ages.  In  the  meantime,  the  various  Christian 
sects  were  consolidated  into  the  Catholic  church.  The 
mercenary  priesthood  of  this  church  were  at  once 
ignorant  of  the  teachings  of  scripture  and  indifferent 


398 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


to  the  welfare  of  the  people;  their  highest  ambition 
was  to  acquire  for  their  sect  universal  political  su- 
premacy and  power,  as  well  as  universal  religious 
supremacy  and  power.  The  scriptures  were  sup- 
planted by  the  traditions  of  the  church;  the  laws  of 
God  were  set  aside  by  the  “Bull”  of  the  Pope;  de- 
bauchery, crime,  and  bloodshed  characterized  the 
reign  of  the  priesthood,  who  claimed  to  be  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Prince  of  Peace;  and  death,  in- 
flicted with  the  most  fiendish  tortures,  was  promptly 
meted  out  to  the  “ heretic  ” whose  nature  revolted 
at  such  atrocities,  and  whose  voice  was  raised  in 
protest  against  crimes  that  were  daily  committed  in 
the  name  of  religion.  Under  these  distressing  con- 
ditions, the  masses  sank  to  the  lowest  depths  of 
ignorance  and  superstition,  and  so  remained  for 
centuries.  The  first  rays  of  light  and  hope,  which 
penetrated  this  benighted  age,  were  ushered  in  by  the 
reformation.  A very  considerable  portion  of  the 
pure-blooded  whites  of  Europe,  following  the  leader- 
ship of  Martin  Luther,  repudiated  Catholicism  and 
inaugurated  a movement  which  resulted  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  Protestantism;  the  beneficial  results 
of  this  movement  were  further  increased  by  the  in- 
vention of  the  printing  press  and  the  consequent 
dissemination  of  learning  among  the  people  of  all 
classes. 

When  the  Protestant  clergy  and  laity  began  to 
investigate  the  scriptures,  they  at  once  found  them- 
selves confronted  with  the  fact  that  the  Bible  teaches 
the  existence  of  a beast  which  habitually  “ walks 
erect,  talks,  and  reasons;  ” and  that  this  animal  was 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


399 


the  tempter  of  Eve;  but  all  knowledge  of  the  fact 
that  the  negro  is  an  ape,  and  that  he  is  the  beast 
which  had  figured  so  prominently  in  the  fall  of  man, 
had  long  been  lost;  centuries  had  passed  since  athe- 
ism had  taken  the  negro  out  of  the  ape  family,  and 
thrust  him  into  the  family  of  man,  as  a “lower  race 
of  the  human  species;”  for  centuries  the  negro  had 
been  received  into  the  Church  as  a “man  and  a 
brother.”  During  the  Dark  Ages  the  negro  had  been 
accepted  into  the  Adamic  family  without  question; 
and  it  never  occurred  to  the  early  Protestants  to 
make  any  inquiry  as  to  his  antecedents.  The  pro- 
fane literature  of  the  ancients  which  would  doubt- 
less have  enlightened  them  upon  the  subject,  had 
all  been  destroyed;  and  modern  science  was  unborn. 
Failing  to  find  among  the  recognized  animals  of  the. 
day,  any  creature  which  could  possibly  meet  the 
scriptural  requirements,  the  most  skeptical  of  the 
early  Protestants  were  led  to  believe  that  the  Bible 
narrative  of  the  fall  of  man  is  merely  an  allegory; 
and  this  pernicious  belief  has  survived  to  our  day, 
and  is  now  entertained  in  quarters  where  we  should 
least  expect  to  find  it. 

Others  among  the  early  Protestants  who  were 
desirous  of  adhering  to  the  Bible,  conceived  the  idea 
that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  “an  invisible,  spiritual 
being,  and  this  absurd  idea  has  also  survived  to  our 
day;  but  it  is  plainly  disproven  by  the  language  of 
the  curse  which  God  put  upon  the  tempter  of  Eve: 
“ I will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and 
between  thy  seed  and  her  seed;  it  shall  bruise  thy 
head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel.”  This  leaves 


400 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


no  room  for  doubt  that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  a 
material  creature;  a creature  of  flesh  and  blood — an 
offspring-bearing  animal. 

Numerous  theories  have  been  advanced  as  to 
the  identity  of  the  tempter  of  Eve;  but  they  are  all 
more  or  less  absurd,  and  so  far  from  being  sustained 
by  the  scriptures,  they  are  all  purely  imaginary. 
The  most  general  opinion  among  the  early  Protest- 
ants was  that  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  a snake;  and 
this  opinion  is  generally  held  by  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  clergy  and  laity  of  to-day;  many  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  snake  theory  hold  that  God  endowed 
the  snake  with  speech  in  order  that  he  might  tempt 
man  to  his  ruin;  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this  theory 
makes  God  the  principal,  and  the  most  guilty  par- 
ticipant in  the  fall  of  man.  This  theory  is  at  once 
too  absurd  and  blasphemous  for  serious  considera- 
tion. There  are  others  who  hold  that  the  snake  was 
merely  the  agent  employed  by  an  invisible  arch 
fiend  to  tempt  man  to  his  ruin;  these  people  hold 
that  the  snake  was  deprived  of  the  gift  of  speech  as 
a punishment  for  his  offense,  and  that  he  was  also 
compelled  to  “go”  on  his  belly  ever  after. 

As  above  shown,  Dr.  Clark  came  nearer  the 
truth  when  he  repudiated  the  snake  theory  and  fixed 
upon  the  ape  as  the  tempter  of  Eve;  but  he  fell  far 
short  of  the  truth  when  he  selected  the  orang;  and 
he  was  compelled  to  advance  the  absurd  theory  that 
the  whole  race  of  orangs  once  possessed  the  erect 
posture  and  articulate  speech;  and  that  God  deprived 
the  whole  race  of  orangs  of  the  erect  posture  and 
the  “gift  of  speech,”  as  a punishment  for  the  acts  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


401 


one  of  their  number.  It  is  surprising  that  men  will 
persist  in  palming  off  on  the  world  a lot  of  home-made 
scripture  when  they  have  already  more  genuine 
scripture  than  they  can  understand.  As  shown 
above,  the  punishment  inflicted  on  the  tempter  of 
Eve  was  confined  to  the  individual  animal  which 
offended;  and  there  is  not  one  particle  of  evidence  to 
indicate  that  it  was  deprived  of  articulate  speech. 
Dr.  Clark,  in  common  with  all  modern  theologians 
who  accept  the  Bible,  insists  that  the  animal  which 
tempted  Eve  was  merely  the  “ agent”  of  an  invisible 
arch  fiend,  commonly  called  the  devil;  this  theory 
teaches  that  there  were  four  active  participants  in 
the  fall  of  man — Adam,  Eve,  the  serpent  and  the 
devil,  which  controlled  the  serpent;  and  this  too,  in 
the  very  face  of  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Bible,  that 
there  were  but  three  parties  implicated — Adam,  Eve, 
and  the  serpent. 

The  modern  theory  that  the  animal  which 
tempted  Eve  was  merely  the  “agent”  or  tool  of  a 
supreme,  invisible  arch  fiend  which  desired  the  ruin 
of  man,  is  opposed  to  the  evident  meaning  conveyed 
by  the  text:  “ Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtle  than 
any  beast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord  God  had  made.” 
Thus  the  inspired  writer  emphatically  states  that  the 
tempter  of  Eve  was  more“  subtle,” that  is,  more  “sly 
in  design,”  more  “ artful,”  more  “ cunning,”  more 
“crafty,”  “than  any  beast  of  the  field  which  the 
Lord  God  had  made;”  and  was  consequently  more 
capable  of  devising  and  executing  a scheme  to  de- 
ceive man  into  violating  the  laws  of  God.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  conveyed 


402 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


by  the  text  that  the  animal  which  deceived  Eve  was 
in  the  least  influenced  or  controlled  by  any  super- 
natural agency. 

In  our  forthcoming  work  on  the  book  of  Rev- 
elation we  shall  prove  that  the  modern  theory  that 
there  is  a supreme,  invisible  arch  fiend,  called  the 
“ devil,”  or  “ satan,”  who  stands  for  all  that  is  wicked 
and  corrupt,  as  God  stands  for  all  that  is  good  and 
pure,  had  its  origin,  and  exists  solely  in  the  grossest 
ignorance  and  superstition.  The  modern  believers 
in  “His  Satanic  Majesty”  will  have  the  opportunity 
of  doing  for  this  much  talked-of  gentleman,  what 
they  have  never  done — the  opportunity  of  proving 
his  reality.  In  pursuing  their  investigation  along 
this  line  these  gentlemen  might  profit  bj^  the  hint 
dropped  by  Dr.  Clark,  who,  in  discussing  certain 
terms  in  the  Arabic  language  which  is  closely  re- 
lated to  the  Hebrew,  says:  “Is  it  not  strange  that 

the  devil  and  ape  should  have  the  same  name,  de- 
rived from  the  same  root,  and  that  root  so  very 
similar  to  the  word  in  the  text?”  We  have  a multi- 
tude of  “ devils,”  but  no  one  of  them  is  supreme; 
and  none  of  them  are  invisible. 

All  the  circumstances  indicate  that  the  beast  of 
the  field  which  tempted  Eve  was  a negress,  who 
served  Eve  in  the  capacity  of  maid  servant;  that  Eve 
became  too  confidential  and  familiar  with  this  ne- 
gress and  was  imposed  upon  by  her.  The  language 
of  the  text  clearly  indicates  that  this  negress  was 
aware  of  the  fact  that  Adam  and  Eve  were  prohib- 
ited from  eating  the  fruit  of  a certain  tree  in  the 
garden,  and  subsequent  events  confirm  it;  yet  in 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE 


403 


/ 


404 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


pretended  ignorance,  she  approaches  her  mistress 
with  the  question:  ‘‘Yea,  hath  God  said,  Ye  shall 

not  eat  of  every  tree  in  the  garden  ?”  It  is  evident 
that  this  was  the  initial  step  in  the  execution  of  a 
cunningly  devised  scheme  to  deceive  the  woman 
into  violating  the  laws  of  God.  At  this  critical  junc- 
ture Eve  made  that  fatal  mistake  which  involved  the 
world  in  sin,  and  the  disastrous  train  of  evils  that 
have  grown  out  of  it ; instead  of  sending  this  pre- 
sumptuous negress  away  with  a reprimand,  the  un- 
suspecting woman  in  the  simplicity  of  her  nature  re- 
plied: “We  may  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the 
garden,  but  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  which  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  garden  God  hath  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat 
of  it  neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.  ” Note  the 
adroitness  with  which  this  negress  approached  Eve 
upon  this  subject ! And,  emboldened  by  her  suc- 
cess in  gaining  the  confidence  of  her  mistress,  she 
flatly  contradicted  the  Word  of  God  by  saying,  “ Ye 
shall  not  surely  die.  For  God  doth  know  that  in 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  then  your  eyes  shall  be 
opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as  gods,  knowing  good  and 
evil.  ” Thus,  by  one  bold,  skillful  move  this  impu- 
dent negress  instilled  into  the  woman’s  mind  distrust 
of  God;  engendered  in  her  heart  discontent  with  her 
position;  and  aroused  in  her  nature  the  unholy  am- 
bition that  she  and  her  husband  “be  as  gods.” 
The  iniquitous  designs  of  the  negress  were  success- 
ful. Eve,  accompanied  by  Adam,  and  doubtless  by 
the  negress  proceeded  to  the  forbidden  tree,  “ and 
took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and  gave  also 
unto  her  husband  with  her,  and  he  did  eat.  ” 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


405 


Thus,  it  is  clearly  shown  that  the  scriptural 
narrative  of  the  fall  of  man,  accredits  no  character- 
istic to  the  tempter  of  Eve  that  is  not  found  in  the 
genuine  negro.  This,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
fact  that  the  Bible  teaches  that  Adam.  Eve,  and  the 
serpent  were  the  only  parties  implicated,  leaves 
modern  theologians  no  basis  for  their  theory  that 
there  was  a fourth  party  implicated;  and  that  this 
fourth  party  was  an  invisible  arch  fiend,  called  the 
“ devil  ” or  “ satan.” 

We  are  taught  by  the  modern  theologians  that 
Adam  and  Eve  committed  their  first  sin  by  eating 
the  forbidden  fruit;  but  to  accept  this  theory  we 
must  disregard  the  narrative  of  creation,  which 
teaches  that  the  design  of  God  in  creating  man,  was 
that  he  should  have  dominion  over  the  animals;  and 
that  when  man  was  created  he  was  assigned  to  this 
task.  Inasmuch  as  the  tempter  of  Eve  was  an 
animal,  it  follows  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Adam  and 
Eve  to  control  it  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the 
animals.  But  instead  of  controlling  this  negress, 
Eve  accepted  the  negress  as  her  counselor,  and 
allowed  the  negress  to  control  her,  and  induced 
Adam  to  do  likewise;  and  she  counseled  them  to 
their  ruin.  Thus,  it  is  plain  that  when  Adam  and 
Eve  accepted  this  creature  as  their  counselor,  they 
not  only  violated  the  laws  given  man  in  the  creation 
to  “ have  dominion  ” over  the  animals,  but  they  out- 
raged the  very  design  of  God  in  creating  man. 
Their  acting  upon  the  advice  of  the  negress  by  eat- 
ing the  forbidden  fruit,  was  their  second  offense; 
when  they  accepted  the  negress  as  their  counselor, 


406 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


they  necessarily  descended  to  social  equality  with 
her.  This  reveals  the  startling  fact  that  it  was  man’s 
social  equality  with  the  negro  that  brought  sin  into 
the  world.  This  being  true,  it  follows  that  man’s 
social  equality  with  the  negro  will  keep  sin  into  the 
world,  and  will  bring  upon  man  the  just  condemna- 
tion of  God.  Besides,  man’s  social  equality  with  the 
negro  tends  to  political  and  religious  equality;  and 
these  three,  or  any  one  of  them,  inevitably  leads  to 
amalgamation — itself  the  most  infamous  and  destruc- 
tive crime  known  to  the  law  of  God. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


The  History  of  Cain. 

“And  Adam  knew  Eve  his  wife;  and  she  con- 
ceived and  bear  Cain,  and  said,  I have  gotten  a man 
from  the  Lord.  And  she  again  bear  his  brother  Abel, 
and  Abel  was  a keeper  of  sheep,  but  Cain  was  a tiller 
of  the  ground.  And  in  process  of  time  it  came  to 
pass,  that  Cain  brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground 
an  offering  unto  the  Lord.  And  Abel,  he  also 
brought  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock  and  of  the  fat 
thereof.  And  the  Lord  had  respect  unto  Abel  and 
to  his  offering;  but  unto  Cain  and  to  his  offering 
he  had  not  respect.  And  Cain  was  very  wroth, 
and  his  countenance  fell.” 

We  are  thus  taught  that  these  brothers  were  en- 
gaged in  different  persuits;  the  one  “was  a keeper  of 
sheep;”  the  other  “was  a tiller  of  the  ground.” 
Hence,  they  were  not  rivals  in  business;  and  had 
each  of  them  lived  in  obedience  to  the  laws  of  God, 
their  offerings  would  have  been  alike  acceptable 
to  God.  But  such  was  not  the  case.  Abel  was  a 
good  man,  and  loved  God  and  had  faith  in  Him; 
(see  Heb.  xi,  4) , this  led  him  to  respect  and  obey 
the  laws  of  God.  Hence,  God  had  respect  for  Abel 
as  a man;  and  this  led  Him  to  respect  Abel’s  offering. 
But  Cain  was  a bad  man;  he  cherished  no  love  for 
God, and  no  respect  for  His  laws;  and  this  led  him  to 

407 


408 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


violate  the  laws  of  God.  Hence,  God  had  no  respect 
for  Cain  as  a man;  and  this  led  Him  to  reject  Cain’s 
offering.  The  nature  of  their  respective  offerings 
had  nothing  to  do  with  God’s  acceptance  of  the  one 
and  His  rejection  of  the  other.  The  whole  question 
hinged  upon  the  position  which  each  of  these  broth- 
ers held  in  the  esteem  of  God.  God  had  respect  for 
Abel;  but  for  Cain  He  had  no  respect. 

“ And  the  Lord  said  unto  Cain,  Why  art  thou 
wroth,  and  why  is  thy  countenance  fallen?  If  thou 
doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted?  And  if  thou 
doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door;  and  unto  thee 
shall  be  his  desire,  and  thou  shalt  rule  over  him.” 
(Gen.  iv,  6,  7) . 

This  clearly  shows  that  Cain  was  not  only  a vio- 
lator of  the  laws  of  God,  but  that  he  had  an  accom- 
plice in  his  crime.  There  was  something  which  had 
desire  for  Cain,  and  no  inamimate  object  can  enter- 
tain desire.  To  have  desire,  requires  both  life  and 
intelligence;  and  inasmuch  as  individuals  of  the 
same  sex  have  no  desire  for  each  other,  we  would 
naturally  decide  that  this  creature  which  had  desire 
for  Cain,  was  a female;  the  mere  fact  that  the  in- 
spired writer  refers  to  it  in  the  masculine  is  no  evi- 
dence that  it  was  not  a female.  In  describing  the 
animals,  the  inspired  writers  frequently  refer  to  both 
sexes  in  the  masculine.  For  example:  “God  made 

every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind.”  “ Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind,”  etc. 
(Gen.  i,  22,  24).  Now  we  know  that  both  sexes  were 
included  in  these  commands;  and  again,  the  sun, 
which  is  without  sex,  is  referred  to  in  the  masculine: 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


409 


“ His  going  forth  is  from  the  end  of  the  heaven,  and 
his  circuit  from  the  end  of  it.”  (Ps.  xix,  6) . 

The  evident  fact  that  Cain’s  associate  in.  the 
crime  which  cost  him  the  respect  of  God,  was  a 
female  which  had  desire  for  him,  indicates  that  the 
sin  which  lay  at  his  “door,”  was  the  result  of  his 
desire  for  her;  and  that  she  was  his  paramour. 
“ Unto  thee  shall  be  his  desire,  and  thou  shalt  rule 
over  him,”  was  a sentence  which  God  imposed  upon 
Cain  and  his  paramour.  Further  evidence  of  this 
is  found  in  the  striking  similarity  of  God’s  language 
in  imposing  this  sentence  to  that  which  He  used  in 
imposing  His  sentence  upon  Eve.  To  the  woman 
who  sinned,  God  said : “ Thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy 

husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee.”  (Gen.  iii, 
16).  To  the  man  Cain,  who  had  sinned,  God  said: 
“Unto  thee  shall  be  his  desire,  and  thou  shalt 
rule  over  him.”  Thus  it  is  plain  that  the  sentence 
which  God  imposed  upon  Eve  was  identical  with  that 
which  He  imposed  upon  Cain’s  associate  in  crime. 
This  identity  of  sentence  furnishes  the  most  positive 
proof  that  Cain’s  accomplice  was  a female.  In  each 
case  God  decreed  that  the  female  should  have  desire 
for  a particular  male,  and  that  this  particular  male 
should  “rule  over”  the  female  which  had  desire  for 
him. 

When  we  compare  the  sentence  which  God  im- 
posed upon  Eve,  and  to  which  Adam  was  made  a 
party,  with  the  sentence  which  He  imposed  upon 
Cain’s  paramour,  and  to  which  Cain  was  made  a 
party,  we  find  that  in  each  case  the  result  to  the 
parties  interested  was  identical.  The  relation  of 


410 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


husband  and  wife  which  existed  between  Adam  and 
Eve  in  the  days  of  their  innocence,  was  sanctioned  by 
the  law  given  man  in  the  Creation,  “be  fruitful  and 
multiply;  ” but  under  the  changed  condition  wrought 
by  their  fall,  God  saw  fit,  by  special  decree  to  bind 
and  confine  them  in  their  sexual  relations  to  each 
other,  changing  their  former  relations  only  so  far  as 
to  place  the  offending  woman  in  subjection  to  her 
husband  whom  she  had  misled.  The  sentence 
which  God  imposed  upon  Cain  and  his  paramour, 
being  identical  with  that  imposed  upon  Adam  and 
Eve,  necessarily  had  the  same  result.  It  bound 
them  together  in  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife, 
and  confined  them  in  their  sexual  relations  to  each 
other;  and  at  the  same  time  placed  Cain’s  wife  in 
subjection  to  him. 

The  inspired  apostle  Jude,  not  only  furnishes 
the  most  positive  evidence  that  Cain’s  associate  in 
crime  was  a female,  but  that  she  was  not  of  the 
Adamic  flesh.  Jude  at  once  arraigns  the  men  of  his 
day  on  the  charge  of  amalgamation — “ giving  them- 
selves over  to  fornication,  and  going  after  strange 
flesh;”  and  urges  the  followers  of  Christ  to  “keep” 
themselves  “in  the  love  of  God.” 

Jude  says:  “ Beloved,  when  I gave  all  deligence 

to  write  unto  you  of  the  common  salvation,  it  was 
needful  for  me  to  write  unto  you  and  exhort  you 
that  ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  which 
was  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  For  there  are  cer- 
tain men,  crept  in  unawares,  who  were  before  of  old 
ordained  to  this  condemnation;  ungodly  men,  turn- 
ing the  grace  of  our  God  into  lasciviousness,  and 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


411 


denying  the  only  Lord  God  and  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  I will  therefore  put  you  in  remembrance, 
though  ye  once  knew  this,  how  that  the  Lord,  hav- 
ing saved  the  people  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  after- 
ward destroyed  them  that  believed  not.  And  the 
angels,  which  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but  left 
their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting 
chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the 
great  day.  Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the 
cities  about  them,  in  like  manner,  giving  themselves 
over  to  fornication  and  going  after  strange  flesh,  are 
set  forth  for  an  example,  suffering  the  vengeance  of 
eternal  fire.  Likewise  these  filthy  dreamers  defile 
the  flesh,  despise  dominion,  and  speak  evil  of  digni- 
taries. Woe  unto  them  for  they  have  gone  in  the 
way  of  Cain.”  ( Jude  i,  3,  4,  etc.) . 

We  are  thus  taught:  (1)  that  the  crime  of  forni- 
cation, with  which  the  Jews  and  other  ancient  people 
are  charged  by  the  inspired  writers,  and  which  led 
to  the  destruction  of  “ Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and  the 
cities  about  them,”  is  traceable  to  Cain,  who  was  the 
first  to  lead  off  in  this  wicked  course.  Hence,  Jude 
describes  it  as  “the  way  of  Cain.”  (2)  That  forni- 
cation, according  to  scripture,  is  “going after  strange 
flesh.” 

The  Bible  describes  two  offences  which  result 
from  illicit  intercourse  between  the  sexes;  the  one 
is  “adultery,”  the  other  is  “fornication.”  We,  of 
modern  times,  are  taught  that  adultery  is  the  “ un- 
faithfulness of  any  married  person  to  the  marriage 
bed.”  (Webster's  Dictionary) . And  that  fornication 
is  “the  incontinence  or  lewdness  of  unmarried  per- 


412 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


sons,  male  or  female.”  {Ibid).  But  this  definition 
of  fornication  was  not  held  by  the  founder  of  Chris- 
tianity. On  the  contrary,  our  Saviour  said:  “Who- 
soever shall  put  away  his  wife,  except  it  be  for  for- 
nication, and  shall  marry  another,  committeth  adul- 
tery; and  whoso  marrieth  her,  which  is  put  away, 
committeth  adultery.”  {Mat.  xix,  9) . Thus,  the 
Saviour  not  only  draws  a broad  distinction  between 
fornication  and  adultery,  but  He  teaches  that  a mar- 
ried person  may  commit  fornication;  and  if  a man 
and  wife  are  divorced  and  either,  or  both  of  them, 
marry  another,  they  commit  adultery , but  not  forni- 
cation. Our  Saviour  also  shows  fornication  to  be  a 
more  heinous  offense  than  adultery,  by  making  it  the 
only  ground  for  divorce.  It  is  also  taught  that  na- 
tions may  become  involved  in  fornication.  (See 
Ezelc.  xvi,  26,  29). 

That  God’s  sentence  upon  Cain  and  his  partner 
in  sin  established  between  them  the  relation  of  hus- 
band and  wife,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  after  their 
sentence,  Cain  is  accredited  with  a wife,  while  prior 
to  this  event  he  is  merely  credited  with  a paramour 
of  “ strange  flesh,”  with  whom  he  committed  forni- 
cation, as  shown  by  the  following:  “And  Cain  went 
out  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  dwelt  in  the 
land  of  Nod,  on  the  east  of  Eden.  And  Cain  knew 
his  wife,  and  she  conceived  and  bear  Enoch.”  {Gen. 
iv,  16,  17). 

There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  scriptural 
record  that  justifies  us  in  supposing  that  Cain  ob- 
tained his  wife  in  the  land  of  Nod;  on  the  contrary, 
the  record  clearly  shows  that  she  was  his  paramour 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


413 


when  he  and  his  brother  Abel  brought  their  offer- 
ings to  the  Lord;  and  that  it  was  his  criminal  rela- 
tions with  her  that  cost  Cain  the  respect  of  God  and 
led  to  the  rejection  of  his  offering.  And  as  a pun- 
ishment upon  Cain  for  his  criminal  relations  with 
her,  God  by  special  decree  established  between  them 
the  relation  of  husband  and  wife.  Upon  their  ar- 
rival in  the  land  of  Nod,  “ Cain  knew  his  wife,”  in 
the  sense  that  she  conceived  and  bare  Enoch;  just 
as,  after  being  driven  from  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
“Adam  knew  Eve,  his  wife,”  in  the  sense  that  she 
conceived  and  bare  Cain. 

Upon  Cain’s  history,  as  upon  many  other  parts 
of  Bible  history,  Paul’s  declaration  that,  “there  is 
one  kind  of  flesh  of  men,  another  flesh  of  beasts, 
another  of  fishes,  and  another  of  birds,  proves 
invaluable,  since  it  enables  us  to  solve  many  of 
the  so-called  mysteries  of  the  Bible.  Jude  tells 
us  that  Cain  committed  fornication  by  “ going  after 
strange  flesh.”  When  we  turn  upon  Jude’s  state- 
ment, the  light  of  Paul’s  declaration  as  to  the  four 
different  kinds  of  flesh,  it  becomes  plain  that  Cain’s 
paramour  was  not  of  Cain’s  “kind  of  flesh” — 
she  was  not  of  the  “ flesh  of  men  ” — she  was  not  a 
woman;  but  was  a creature  of  “strange  flesh;”  and 
being  a land  animal,  she  belonged  to  the  flesh  of 
beasts.  Hence,  Cain’s  wife  was  a beast;  yet  his  wife 
of  strange  flesh  bare  Cain  offspring  that  was  indefi- 
nitely fertile.  His  son  Enoch  had  numerous  de- 
scendants— children,  grand-children,  great  grand- 
children, etc. 

In  a previous  chapter  we  have  shown  that  Cain’s 


414 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


mixed-blooded  progeny  compare  favorably,  in  point 
of  intelligence  and  culture,  with  the  most  intelligent 
and  cultured  of  the  mixed-bloods  of  our  day.  They 
were  great  cattle  raisers;  they  mined,  and  worked 
metals  and  fashioned  them  into  implements;  they 
were  skillful  mechanics  and  accomplished  musicians; 
they  evidently  cultivated  domestic  plants,  especially 
the  food  plants,  and  they  possessed  a knowledge  of 
God  and  His  dealings  with  Cain,  as  shown  by  the 
utterances  of  one  of  them  who  had  slain  a man: 
“ Hear  my  voice;  ye  wives  of  Lamach,  hearken  to  my 
speech;  for  I have  slain  a man  to  my  wounding, 
and  a young  man  to  my  hurt.  If  Cain  shall  be 
avenged  seven  fold,  truly  Lamach  seventy  and  seven 
fold.”  (Gen.  iv,  23,  24). 

In  view  of  the  characteristics  of  the  beast  of 
the  field,  as  we  find  them  recorded  in  scripture,  it  is 
plain  that  Cain’s  wife  was  a beast  of  the  field — a 
negress;  and  it  is  highly  probable  that  she  was  the 
immediate  offspring  of  the  negress  who  tempted 
Eve;  and  that  God’s  curse  upon  the  tempter — “ I will 
put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  be- 
tween thy  seed  and  her  seed;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head 
and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel  ” — was  fulfilled  in  the 
disasters  which  befell  Cain  as  the  result  of  his  crimi- 
nal relations  with  her. 

Thus,  the  testimony  of  the  inspired  writers, 
Moses,  Jude  and  St.  Paul,  sweeps  away  the  veil  of 
mystery  which  for  so  many  centuries  has  enveloped 
the  marital  relations  of  Cain,  and  throws  a flood 
of  light  upon  the  most  important  events  in  his  his- 
tory. 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


415 


When  we  appeal  to  science  to  identify  this  crea- 
ture of  “ strange  flesh  ” with  which  Cain  committed 
fornication , and  which  bore  him  offspring  as  above 
described,  she  promptly  invades  the  so-called  “human 
species,”  and  points  to  the  negro  as  the  highest  race 
of  ape,  and  the  only  creature  of  the  lower  kinds 
of  flesh  with  which  man  may  associate  himself 
carnally  and  produce  offspring  which  will  at  once 
be  indefinitely  fertile,  and  capable  of  acquiring  a 
knowledge  of  God  and  the  arts  of  civilization. 
Throughout  his  whole  history,  man  has  manifested 
a strong  disposition  to  abandon  himself  to  this 
loathesome,  destructive  crime,  and  this  is  rendered 
even  more  conspicuous  by  the  fact  that  Cain,  the 
first  child  born  to  the  Adamic  Creation,  fell,  the  vic- 
tim of  amalgamation. 

Inasmuch,  as  all  knowledge  of  the  fact  that 
the  negro  is  an  ape  was  lost  centuries  ago,  the 
modern  theologian  was  led  to  decide  that  Cain  took 
his  sister  to  wife;  but  had  this  been  true,  she  would 
not  have  been  of  “ strange  flesh;  ” Cain  and  his  wife 
would  have  been  of  one  flesh — the  “flesh  of  men;” 
besides,  sin  would  not  have  lain  at  Cain’s  “door”  as 
the  result  of  his  act.  He  would  simply  have  obeyed 
the  law  given  man  in  the  Creation,  “ be  fruitful  and 
multiply.”  The  only  way  in  which  the  immediate 
sons  of  Adam  could  have  preserved  and  increased 
the  Adamic  flesh  was  by  taking  their  sisters  to  wife. 
Seth  and  his  younger  brothers  did  this,  and  they 
were  never  censured  for  it.  On  the  contrary,  Seth, 
the  third  son  of  Adam,  was  highly  honored  by  tak- 
ing his  sister  to  wife,  since  it  placed  him  in  the  line 


416 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


of  descent  from  Adam  to  Jesus  Christ.  Hence,  he 
occupies  an  exalted  position  in  the  genealogical 
tables  of  the  Bible,  as  one  of  the  ancestors  of  the 
Messiah. 

Further  evidence  that  Cain’s  wife  was  not  of 
the  “ flesh  of  men  ” — that  she  was  not  a woman — is 
found  in  the  fact  that  Seth  was  the  third  child  born 
to  Adam,  and  took  the  place  of  Abel  whom  Cain 
slew,  as  shown  by  the  record:  “And  Adam  knew 

his  wife  again  ; and  she  bore  a son,  and  called  his 
name  Seth:  For  God,  saith  she,  hath  appointed  me 

another  seed  instead  of  Abel,  whom  Cain  slew.” 
(Gen.  iv,  25) . And  there  were  no  daughters  born 
to  Adam  until  after  the  birth  of  Seth,  as  shown  by 
the  record:  “And  the  days  of  Adam  after  he  begat 

Seth  were  eight  hundred  years,  and  he  begat  sons 
and  daughters.”  (Gen.  v,  4).  The  profane  history 
of  this  early  period  has  long  since  been  lost.  But 
the  history  of  Adam’s  immediate  descendants  is  of 
such  vital  importance  to  the  men  of  subsequent 
ages,  that  God  inspired  Moses  to  write  it;  and  if 
there  had  been  any  daughters  born  to  Adam  and 
Eve  prior  to  the  birth  of  Seth,  Moses  would  have 
made  some  mention  of  them;  the  inspired  writer 
mentions  the  sons  born  to  Adam  before  the  birth  of 
Seth,  as  well  as  those  born  after  that  event;  and  if 
there  had  been  daughters  born  to  Adam  before  the 
birth  of  Seth,  why  should  he  decline  to  mention 
them  as  well  as  those  born  after  that  event  ? If  we 
accept  the  Bible  account  of  the  immediate  offspring 
of  Adam  as  an  inspired  narrative,  we  have  no  alter- 
native than  to  regard  it  as  full  and  authentic. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


417 


Hence,  we  must  stand  by  the  record,  and  decide 
that  there  was  no  daughter  born  to  Adam  until  after 
the  birth  of  Seth.  Thus  the  history  of  Cain’s  mari- 
tal relations  fully  sustains  the  teachings  of  Jude  that 
Cain’s  paramour  was  not  of  his  kind  of  flesh — she  was 
not  of  the  “ flesh  of  men  ” — hence,  she  was  not  a 
woman — but  was  a creature  of  strange  flesh  with 
which  he  committed  fornication;  for  nothing  is  more 
clearly  taught  in  the  Bible  than  that  Cain  had  a 
wife  before  Seth  was  born. 

Cain  being  the  eldest  son  of  Adam,  it  is  plain 
that,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  events  the  first  fe- 
male child  born  to  the  Adamic  family  would,  upon 
reaching  maturity,  be  given  in  marriage  to  Cain ; but 
Cain’s  loathsome  crime  in  cultivating  sexual  relations 
with  a beast  had  rendered  him  unfit  for  the  com- 
panionship of  a pure  woman.  Besides,  God’s  sen- 
tence upon  Cain  and  his  paramour  bound  Cain  to 
this  beast  in  the  relation  of  husband  all  his  life,  and 
forever  restrained  him  from  holding  sexual  relations 
with  woman.  And  as  a result,  the  beautiful  Adamic 
woman  who,  in  all  her  virgin  loveliness,  would 
have  been  the  wife  of  Cain,  would  now  become  the 
wife  of  his  brother,  Abel.  In  Jiis~  jealousy  and  rage 
upon  realizing  this,  we  might  find  an  explanation  of 
why,  “ Cain  rose  up  against  Abel  his  brother  and 
slew  him.  ” 

When  viewed  from  the  atheist’s  standpoint,  that 
man  is  a species  composed  of  a greater  or  less  num- 
ber of  races,  the  history  of  Cain  and  his  descendants 
presents  little  to  interest,  and  is  of  no  practical 
value;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  altogether  unsatisfac- 


418 


THE  TEMPTER  OP  EYE. 


tory  and  misleading.  But  when  viewed  in  the  light  of 
the  scriptures  and  the  sciences,  it  at  once  becomes  a 
subject  of  the  most  absorbing  interest  and  impor- 
tance. God’s  utter  abhorrence  of  amalgamation  is 
shown  in  the  disasters  which  He  visited  upon  Cain; 
while  God’s  wondrous  love  for  man  is  displayed  in 
His  formation  and  preservation  of  the  genealogical 
table  of  Cain’s  descendants,  in  which  it  is  made  a 
matter  of  scriptural  record  that  there  is  a beast  with 
which  man  may  associate  himself  carnally  and  pro- 
duce offspring  that  will  be  at  once  indefinitely  fer- 
tile, and  capable  of  acquiring  a knowledge  of  God 
and  the  arts  of  civilization. 

Inasmuch  as  Cain’s  wife  was  a negress,  her 
offspring  were  necessarily  mixed-bloods.  This  ex- 
plains why  Cain  and  his  descendants  were  thrust 
out  of  the  line  of  descent  from  Adam  to  Jesus 
Christ;  and  the  line  of  descent  as  shown  in  the  gen- 
ealogical tables  is  made  to  pass  through  Seth,  the 
third  son  of  Adam,  and  through  his  descendants  of 
pure  Adamic  stock.  Cain  and  his  wife  disappear 
from  the  records,  and  all  trace  of  them  is  lost  after 
the  birth  of  Enoch,  and  the  building  of  the  city 
which  Cain  named  after  his  son,  Enoch. 

Thus  itis  shown:  (1)  That  the  rejection  of  Cain’s 
offering  was  solely  due  to  the  fact  that  God  had  no 
respect  for  Cain  as  a man,  because  he  was  a violator 
of  the  law  of  God.  (2)  That  Cain  had  an  accom- 
plice in  his  crime.  (3)  That  his  accomplice  was  a fe- 
male of  “ stange  flesh  ” with  whom  he  committed  “ for- 
nication.” (4)  That  his  paramour  was  a “ beast  of 
the  field  ” — an  ape.  (5)  That,  as  a punishment  for 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


419 


his  loathsome  crime,  God  bound  him  to  this  beast 
in  the  relation  of  husband,  and  forever  debased  him 
from  holding  marital  relations  with  woman.  (6) 
That  his  wife  bore  him  offspring  that  was  indefinitely 
fertile,  and  capable  of  acquiring  a knowledge  of 
God  and  the  arts  of  civilization.  (7)  That  the  gen- 
ealogical table  of  Cain’s  descendants  serves  no  other 
purpose,  and  was  merely  designed  as  a scriptural  rec- 
ord of  the  fact  that  there  is  a beast  with  which  man 
may  associate  himself  carnally  and  produce  offspring 
that  will  be  indefinitely  fertile,  and  capable  of  ac- 
quiring a knowledge  of  God  and  the  arts  of  civiliza- 
tion. What  other  good  purpose  does  this  genealog- 
ical table  of  Cain’s  descendants  perform?  Why  does 
the  inspired  writer  give  us  a list  of  the  principal 
characters  among  Cain’s  offspring  by  his  wife  of 
“strange  flesh,”  with  their  occupations,  etc.,  for  five 
generations,  and  then  stop,  when  he  gives  us  a list 
of  pure-blooded  whites  extending  from  Adam  to  Jesus 
Christ?  This  genealogical  table  of  Cain’s  descend- 
ants serves  a purpose;  it  is  simply  a scriptual  record 
of  the  fact  that  there  is  a beast  with  which  man  may 
associate  himself  carnally  and  produce  offspring  pos- 
sessing the  characteristics  of  mixed-bloods.  (8) 
That  no  lower  grade  of  ape  than  the  negro  meets  the 
scriptural  requirements. 

Cain’s  wife  being  a negress — an  ape — she,  like 
every  other  animal,  was  simply  a combination  of  two 
creations — matter  and  mind;  and  was  consequently  a 
mere  creature  of  time.  On  the  other  hand,  Cain, 
being  a man,  was  a combination  of  three  creations — 
matter,  mind,  and  soul;  and  was  consequentlylm  imr 


'420 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


mortal  being.  This  unnatural  condition  of  affairs 
suggests  the  inquiry,  was  it  possible  for  Cain  to 
transmit  the  soul  creation  to  his  mulatto  son  Enoch 
and  his  progeny,  and  thus  establish  between  God 
and  these  mixed-bloods,  the  relation  of  father  and 
son?  To  answer  this  question,  we  must  investigate 
the  laws  which  govern  the  reproduction  of  the  crea- 
tions, as  they  exist  in  man  and  the  animals. 

The  negro,  like  every  other  animal,  being  merely 
a combination  of  two  creations — matter  and  mind — 
it  follows  that  one  side  or  part  of  the  matter  crea- 
tion, and  one  side  or  part  of  the  mind  creation,  ex- 
ists in  an  imperfect  state  in  the  male  negro;  the  cor- 
responding sides  or  parts  of  these  imperfect  crea- 
tions exists  in  the  female  negro.  In  the  sexual  act 
each  side  or  part  of  these  creations  maintains  its  in- 
dividuality, and  acts  as  a magnet  which  attracts  its 
corresponding  side  or  part  in  the  opposite  sex; 
and  when  united  and  perfected  in  the  female,  con- 
ception and  birth  ensues,  and  the  two  creations — 
matter  and  mind — are  reproduced  in  the  young 
negro. 

Thus,  two  creations — matter  and  mind — combine 
to  perfect  the  negro.  But  it  requires  the  combina- 
tion of  the  three  creations — matter,  mind,  and  soul — 
to  perfect  man.  Hence,  while  but  two  creations — 
matter  and  mind — exist  in  an  imperfect  state  in  the 
germs  of  the  male  and  the  female  negro,  as  mutually 
dependent  sides  or  parts  of  the  life  system  of  the 
animal,  the  three  creations — matter,  mind,  and  soul 
exist  in  an  imperfect  state  in  the  germs  of  the  male 
and  female  man,  as  mutually  dependent  sides  or 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


421 


parts  of  the  life  system  of  man;  and  so  great  is  the 
attraction  between  the  matter  and  mind  creations  as 
they  exist  in  the  imperfect  state  in  the  germs  of  man 
and  the  negro,  that  sexual  intercourse  between  the 
two  may  unite  and  perfect  these  two  creations.  But 
the  imperfect  side  or  part  of  the  soul  creation  as  it 
exists  in  the  germ  of  the  man,  finds  no  correspond- 
ing side  or  part  in  the  negro;  as  a result  the  soul 
creation  having  no  attraction,  remains  passive. 
Hence,  if  conception  ensues  from  the  union  of  the 
germs  and  the  consequent  perfecting  of  the  matter 
and  mind  creations  of  man  and  the  negro,  this  pas- 
sive creation  forms  no  part  of  the  offspring  of  this 
unnatural  union.  Thus,  neither  the  male  nor  the 
female  side  or  part  of  man  can  transmit  the  three 
creations — matter,  mind,  and  soul — to  their  offspring 
by  the  negro,  in  whom  the  matter  and  the  mind 
creations  alone  exist.  In  other  words,  the  male  and 
the  female  can  only  transmit  to  their  offspring  such 
of  these  creations  as  are  common  to  both  parents. 

Thus,  it  is  plain  that  only  the  sides  or  parts  of 
matter  and  the  mind  creations,  as  they  existed  in  the 
respective  germs  of  Cain  and  his  negro  wife,  were 
united  and  perfected  in  their  offspring;  while  the 
side  or  part  of  the  soul  creation,  as  it  existed  in  an 
imperfect  state  in  Cain,  found  no  corresponding  side 
or  part  in  his  negro  wife,  remained  passive  in  the  sex- 
ual act,  and  consequently  formed  no  part  of  the  off- 
spring of  this  unnatural  union.  Hence,  Cain’s 
mulatto  son  was  wholly  animal — a mere  combination 
of  matter  and  mind — and  being  utterly  destitute  of 
a soul,  there  existed  no  kinship  between  God  and 


422 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


Cain’s  son,  Enoch.  Hence,  when  a man  becomes  so 
degraded  as  to  associate  himself  carnally  with  the 
negro,  his  act  brings  into  operation  the  law  which 
governs  the  reproduction  of  the  creations,  which 
makes  it  impossible  for  man  to  transmit  to  his  off- 
spring by  the  beast  the  slightest  kinship  with  God. 

This  law  becomes  active  and  operates  with  the 
same  result  when  man  associates  himself  carnally 
with  the  mixed-bloods  without  reference  to  what 
their  proportions  of  white  and  black  blood  may  be. 
The  immediate  offspring  of  man  and  the  negro — 
the  half  breed — like  the  negro,  is  merely  a combi- 
nation of  matter  and  mind;  consequently,  in  associ- 
ating himself  carnally  with  the  mixed-bloods,  man 
would  continually  oppose  three  creations — matter, 
mind,  and  soul — as  they  exist  in  their  imperfect 
state  in  his  germ,  to  only  two  creations — matter 
and  mind — as  they  exist  in  their  imperfect  state  in 
the  germ  of  the  mixed-bloods.  Hence,  it  could  only 
be  possible  to  unite  and  perfect  the  matter  and  the 
mind  creations  as  they  exist  in  their  imperfect  state 
in  the  respective  germs  of  man  and  the  mixed-bloods, 
and  thus  reproduce  them  in  the  offspring.  But  the 
side  or  part  of  the  soul  creation,  as  it  exists  in  its  im- 
perfect state  in  the  germ  of  the  man,  finding  no  cor- 
responding side  or  part  in  the  mixed-bloods  with 
which  it  might  be  united  and  perfected,  is  not  affected 
in  the  sexual  act,  and  remains  passive;  hence,  it  forms 
no  part  in  the  offspring.  This  unvarying  law  would 
hold  good  through  millions  of  generations.  Man 
cannot  transmit  to  his  offspring  by  the  negro,  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


423 


least  vestige  of  the  soul  creation.  Hence,  no  mixedr 
blood  has  a soul. 

In  addition  to  this,  a moment’s  reflection  should 
convince  us  that,  inasmuch  as  God  declined  in  the 
creation,  to  establish  any  kinship  between  Himself 
and  the  animals,  it  follows  that  he  would  not  make 
it  possible  for  man  to  do  so  by  an  act,  which,  of  itself, 
is  a violation  of  that  Divine  law:  “ Thou  shall  not  lie 
with  any  beast. ” 

The  social  equality  with  the  negro  to  which 
Adam  and  Eve  descended  in  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
culminated  in  Cain’s  abandoning  himself  to  amalga- 
mation with  the  negro;  in  the  absence  of  a female  of 
his  kind  of  flesh , he  selected  a paramour  of  strange 
flesh — a negress.  In  this  age  of  atheism,  in  which 
the  negro  is  universally  recognized  as  “a  lower  race 
of  the  human  species,”  and  man’s  marriage  with  him 
universally  sanctioned  by  the  church,  and  almost 
universally  sanctioned  by  the  state,  it  is  difficult  for 
us  to  comprehend  the  depth  of  depravity  to  which 
Cain  descended  by  cohabiting  with  a negress;  neither 
is  it  easy  for  us  to  understand  the  crushing  degrada- 
tion to  which  God  subjected  Cain  by  binding  him  in 
marriage  to  the  base-born  object  of  his  lust.  Like 
the  antediluvians,  and  the  people  of  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah, and  like  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians,  and 
Israelites,  etc.,  we,  of  modern  times,  have  “gone  into 
the  way  of  Cain;”  but  when  we  accept  the  teachings 
of  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences,  that  the  negro  is 
an  ape,  we  should  be  able  to  look  upward  from  the 
depths  of  depravity  to  which  we  have  descended,  at 
least  so  far  as  to  realize  that,  in  binding  Cain  in  mar- 


424 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


riage  to  a beast,  God  inflicted  upon  him  the  most 
degrading  punishment.  The  Bible  abounds  with  in- 
stances in  which  individuals  and  nations  cultivated 
marriage  relations  with  the  negro  and  with  the  mixed- 
bloods,  but  in  every  case  these  marriage  relations 
were  the  voluntary  acts  of  these  individuals  and 
nations.  But  Cain’s  case  is  the  only  one  on  record 
where  God,  by  special  decree,  bound  a man  in  mar- 
riage to  the  beast  with  which  he  had  committed  for- 
nication. Hence,  the  degrading  punishment  which 
God  visited  upon  Cain — the  first  amalgamationist — 
is  unparalleled  in  His  dealings  with  men. 

It  was  evidently  God’s  intention  to  make  an 
example  of  Cain,  by  inflicting  upon  him  a punish- 
ment so  degrading  as  to  restrain  others  from  “ going 
after  strange  flesh.”  But  the  infamy  which  God 
heaped  upon  Cain  failed  to  restrain  others  from  going 
“in  the  way  of  Cain,”  as  shown  by  Jude’s  reference 
to  “ the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but 
left  their  own  habitation,  * * * giving  them- 

selves over  to  fornication,  and  going  after  strange 
flesh.  * * * These  filthy  dreamers  defile  the 

flesh,  despise  dominion,  and  speak  evil  of  dignita- 
ries. * * * Woe  unto  them,  for  they  have  gone 

in  the  way  of  Cain.”  {Jude) . 

The  “ angels  ” above  referred  to,  were  not  celes- 
tial, but  material  beings.  They  were  the  early  de- 
scendants of  Adam  who  “ left  their  own  habitation  ” 
— the  Adamic  flesh,  as  presented  in  woman — “going 
after  strange  flesh” — the  flesh  of  beasts, as  presented 
in  the  negro.  Those  “filthy  dreamers”  “despised 
dominion  ” over  the  negro  in  common  with  the  rest 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


425 


of  the  animals,  and  preferred  social  equality  with 
him  and  the  amalgamation  to  which  it  inevitably 
leads. 

Additional  proof  of  the  prevalence  of  amalgama- 
tion among  the  antediluvians  is  shown  by  the  follow- 
ing: “And  it  came  to  pass,  when  men  began  to  mul- 
tiply upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters  were 
born  unto  them,  that  the  sons  of  God  saw  the 
daughters  of  men  that  they  were  fair:  and  they  took 
them  wives  of  all  which  they  chose.  And  the  Lord 
said,  my  spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man,  for 
that  he  also  is  flesh:  Yet  his  days  shall  be  an  hun- 

dred and  twenty  years.  There  were  giants  in  those 
days;  and  also  after  that,  when  the  sons  of  God  went 
in  unto  the  daughters  of  men,  and  they  bear  chil- 
dren to  them,  the  same  became  mighty  men  which 
were  of  old,  men  of  renown.”  (Gen.  vi,  1,  2,  3,  4). 

We  observe  that  these  texts  plainly  show:  (1) 

That  there  is  a broad  distinction  made  between  the 
“ sons  of  God,”  and  the  “daughters  of  men.”  (2) 
That  their  inter-marriages  were  criminal.  (3)  That 
God  had  striven  with  man  to  induce  him  to  refrain 
from  such  marriages.  (4)  That  God  was  growing 
weary  of  striving  with  man — “ My  spirit  shall  not 
always  strive  with  man,  for  that  he  also  is  flesh;” 
thus  clearly  stating  that,  like  man,  these  creatures, 
with  which  man  was  contracting  these  unlawful 
marriages,  were  creatures  of  flesh.  (5)  That  God 
gave  man  120  years  in  which  to  abandon  his  wicked 
course,  and  return  to  his  duties  and  to  a life  of  obed- 
ience. (6)  That,  in  some  cases,  the  offspring  re- 
sulting from  the  unions  between  the  “ sons  of  God” 


426 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


and  “the  daughters  of  men,”  were  of  such  extra- 
ordinary size  as  to  be  termed  “giants;”  and  it  is 
significant  that  the  mixed-bloods  of  postdiluvian 
times  were  physical  giants;  such,  for  example,  was 
Goliath,  the  Philistine  whom  David  slew;  such  also 
' were  the  Anakims.  ( Deut . ii,  10,  11) . The  skeletons 
of  ancient  Indians  have  been  found  which  were  of 
such  extraordinary  size  as  to  lead  to  their  being 
termed  “ giants.”  And  we  occasionally  find  “ giants  ” 
among  the  mixed-bloods  of  to-day;  on  the  other 
hand,  we  find  among  the  mixed-bloods,  tribes  com- 
posed of  individuals  so  diminutive  as  to  be  termed 
“pigmies”  or  “dwarfs.”  But  whether  giants  or 
pigmies , these  monstrosities  are  always  mixed-bloods; 
the  tribes  of  pigmies  to  be  found  to-day  are  neither 
white  nor  black,  but  some  shade  of  brown,  red,  or 
yellow;  and  the  fossil  remains  of  either  pigmies  or 
giants  will  show  the  evidence  of  crossing.  The  pure 
whites  vary  in  size;  but  these  variations  never  ex- 
tend from  pigmies  to  giants.  In  no  case  do  they 
develop  into  physical  giants;  neither  do  the  pure 
whites  produce  pigmies  or  dwarfs;  except  in  isolated 
individual  cases,  and  then  only  as  the  result  of  ac- 
cident or  disease.  The  same  is  true  of  the  pure- 
blooded  negroes;  they  produce  no  giants  and  no 
pigmies. 

In  commenting  on  the  “ sons  of  God,”  and  the 
“daughters  of  men,”  and  their  unlawful  unions  and 
progeny  of  giants,  Lenormant  pronounces  it  “the 
crux  intrepretum  of  the  first  part  of  Genesis.”  Vari- 
ous efforts  have  been  made  to  solve  the  question  as 
to  who  were  the  “ sons  of  God  ” and  who  were,  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


427 


“ daughters  of  men.”  Hence,  this  question  has  been 
the  subject  of  endless  speculation  and  controversy. 
Many  of  the  early  Catholic  writers  even  went  so  far 
as  to  suppose  that  the  “ sons  of  God  ” were  celestial 
beings,  who  became  infatuated  with  the  beauty  of 
the  women  of  the  earth — the  “ daughters  of  men” — 
and  formed  marriage  alliances  with  them  which  led 
to  the  production  of  an  unnatural  progeny  in  the 
form  of  giants.  ( Beginning  of  History,  pp.  299,  300). 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  these  early  Catholic 
writers  lived  and  wrote  at  a time  when  all  knowledge 
of  the  fact  that  the  white  is  thy  only  man,  and  that 
the  negro  is  an  ape,  were  lost;  that  they  lived  at  a 
time  when  atheism  had  misled  the  world  into  accept- 
ing the  degrading  theory  that  man  is  a species  of 
which  the  white  is  the  highest  and  the  negro  is  the 
lowest  race,  with  the  browns,  reds,  and  yellows  as 
intermediate  races  in  different  stages  of  development. 
Under  the  demoralizing  influence  of  this  destructive 
theory,  they  recognized  the  negro  as  “ a man  and  a 
brother;”  and  also  recognized  his  mixed-blooded 
progeny — the  so-called  brown,  red,  and  yellow  races 
— as  “ men  and  brethren.”  Blinded  by  this  false 
teaching  of  atheism,  they  could  see  nothing  criminal 
in  the  marriage  of  whites  with  these  so-called  “ lower 
races  of  men.”  Hence,  when  they  observed  the 
broad  distinction  made  between  the  “sons  of  God” 
and  the  “daughters  of  men,”  the  criminality  of  their 
marriages,  and  the  unnatural  offspring  resulting 
therefrom,  together  with  the  terrible  punishment 
which  God  visited  upon  them  because  of  these  crimes, 
the  early  “ fathers  of  the  church  ” conceived  the  ab- 


428 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


surd  idea  that  the  “sons  of  God”  were  angels  who 
fell  from  their  high  estate  through  their  guilty  loves 
for  the  women  of  the  earth — the  “ daughters  of  men.” 

But  when  we  lay  aside  our  atheism  and  accept 
the  teachings  of  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences  that 
the  white  is  the  only  man,  and  that  the  negro  is  an 
ape,  and  view  this  whole  subject  in  the  light  of  Cain’s 
history,  as  above  set  forth,  it  becomes  plain  that  the 
“sons  of  God”  were  the  pure-blooded  male  descend- 
ants of  “Adam,  the  son  of  God;”  and  that  the 
“daughters  of  men”  were  mixed-blooded  females; 
they  were  the  offspring  of  amalgamation  between  the 
Adamic  males  and  the  negro  females.  Thus  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  inspired  writer  describes  them  to  a 
nicety;  their  fathers  were  men;  hence,  they  were  the 
“daughters  of  men;”  but  their  mothers  were  not 
women , they  were  negresses — “ beasts  of  the  field  ” — 
apes. 

Continuing  his  narrative  of  the  criminal  mar- 
riage of  the  “sons  of  God”  with  the  “daughters  of 
men,”  the  disposition  which  God  made  of  them  and 
their  unnatural  progeny,  the  inspired  writer  says: 
“And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was 
great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of  the 
thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually.  And 
it  repented  the  Lord  that  He  had  made  man  on  the 
earth,  and  it  grieved  Him  at  his  heart.  And  the 
Lord  said,  I will  destroy  man,  whom  I have  created, 
from  the  face  of  the  earth;  both  man  and  beast,  and 
the  creeping  things,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air;  for  it 
repentetli  Me  that  I have  made  them.”  (Gen.  vi, 
5,  6,  7). 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


429 


Thus  God’s  abhorrence  of  amalgamation  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that,  after  striving  for  ages  to  in- 
duce man  to  abandon  his  wicked  course,  He  was  dis- 
posed, in  His  wrath  and  disgust,  to  destroy  from  the 
earth  both  man  and  the  animals.  But  just  at  this 
critical  period — the  most  critical  in  man’s  history — 
“Noah  found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord.”  (Gen. 
vi,  8) . 

“ These  are  the  generations  of  Noah:  Noah  was 
a just  man  and  perfect  in  his  generations,  and 
Noah  walked  with  God.”  (Gen.  vi,  9).  There  are 
three  characteristics  here  recorded  of  Noah,  and 
they  are  evidently  given  as  so  many  reasons  why 
Noah  found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord:  (1) 

“ Noah  was  a just  man.”  (2)  He  was  “ perfect  in  his 
generations.”  (3)  “ Noah  walked  with  God;  ” that  is, 
he  was  obedient  to  the  laws  of  God.  There  was 
nothing  uncommon  in  Noah’s  possession  of  the  first 
and  third  of  these  characteristics ; many  men  preceded 
Noah,  and  many  came  after  him  who  possessed  these 
characteristics;  on  the  other  hand,  the  second  charac- 
teristic, that  he  was  “ perfect  in  his  generations,”  is 
shared  by  every  pure-blooded  descendant  of  Adam; 
but  the  record  of  it,  unlike  the  characteristic  itself, 
is  peculiar  to  Noah.  No  such  record  is  found  of  the 
great  antediluvian  patriarch,  Enoch  (the  seventh 
from  Adam),  who,  like  Elijah,  was  translated;  nor 
of  Abraham;  nor  of  Moses;  nor  of  David;  nor  even 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Is  it  not  peculiar  that  in  all  Bible 
history,  there  is  just  this  one  individual  of  whom  it 
is  recorded,  that  he  was  “perfect  in  his  genera- 
tions?” The  fact  that  Noah  was  “perfect  in  his 


V 


430  THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 

generations”  was  not  the  result  of  any  act  of  his; 
and  all  credit  for  its  existence  in  him  is  wholly  due 
to  his  ancestors  who  transmitted  to  him  from  Adam, 
in  uncorrupted  line  of  descent  the  pure  Adamic 
stock.  The  fact  that  he  was  “ perfect  in  his  genera- 
tions” was  one  of  the  reasons  why  “Noah  found 
grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,”  when  viewed  in  the 
light  of  all  its  attendant  circumstances,  necessarily 
carries  with  it  the  implication  that  there  were  others 
in  Noah’s  time,  who  were  not  perfect  in  their  genera- 
tions. Now,  if  Noah  was  “perfect  in  his  genera- 
tions,” because  his  ancestors  transmitted  to  him  in 
uncorrupted  line  of  descent  from  Adam,  the  pure 
Adamic  flesh,  and  there  were  others  in  Noah’s  time 
who  were  not  perfect  in  their  generations,  by  asso- 
sociation,  with  whom  did  their  ancestors  transmit  to 
them  a corrupted  line  of  descent  from  Adam? 

Illicit  intercourse  between  the  Adamic  males 
and  females  indicates  a corrupt  condition  of  their 
morals;  but  the  offspring  of  such  illegal  unions  will 
be  as  perfect  in  their  generations — as  pure  in  their 
genealogy — as  if  the  relations  of  their  parents  had 
been  legitimate.  As  long  as  man’s  sexual  relations 
are  confined  to  the  Adamic  flesh , their  genealogy  is 
perfect  and  their  line  of  descent  pure.  This  being 
true,  it  follows  that  the  genealogy  of  the  antedilu- 
vians— their  line  of  descent  from  Adam — could  only 
have  been  corrupted  by  their  sexual  relations  with 
some  other  “kind  of  flesh,”  which  resulted  in  the 
production  of  a fertile  progeny.  This  enables  us  to 
realize  the  deep  significance  of  this  record  concerning 
Noah’s  genealogy.  The  antediluvians  had  gone  in 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


431 


the  way  of  Cain;  amalgamation  had  become  general 
and  widespread  among  them.  Hence,  when  God 
decided  to  preserve  Noah  and  his  family  from  whom 
the  Adamic  stock  of  postdiluvian  times  are  descended, 
He  made  it  a matter  of  scriptural  record  that  there 
was  no  taint  of  negro  blood  in  Noah’s  veins;  he  was 
a pure-blooded  descendant  of  Adam — he  was  “perfect 
in  his  generations.”  Noah’s  wife  was  also  a pure- 
blooded  descendant  of  Adam,  for,  had  there  been  any 
taint  of  negro  blood  in  her  veins,  he  could  not  have 
lain  with  her  and  “ walked  with  God.”  Noah  and 
his  wife  being  pure-blooded  descendants  of  Adam, 
their  sons — Ham,  Shem,  and  Japheth — were  neces- 
sarily the  same;  and  their  wives  were  of  pure  Adamic 
stock,  or  they  would  not  have  been  preserved,  but 
would  have  been  destroyed  with  the  rest  of  the 
mixed-bloods. 

Amalgamation  is  the  sole  charge  recorded  against 
the  antedilivians,  as  shown  by  the  following:  “The 

earth  also  was  corrupt  before  God,  and  the  earth  was 
filled  with  violence.  And  God  looked  upon  the 
earth  and  behold  it  was  corrupt;  for  all  flesh  had 
corrupted  His  way  on  the  earth.  And  God  said  to 
Noah:  The  end  of  all  flesh  is  come  before  me;  for  the 
earth  is  filled  with  violence  through  them;  and,  be- 
hold, I will  destroy  them  with  the  earth.”  (Gen. 
vi,  11,  12,  13). 

Inasmuch  as  “ all  flesh  ” on  the  earth  had  been 
“ corrupted,”  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire  as  to  how 
many  kinds  of  flesh  there  are  on  the  earth.  To  as- 
certain this,  we  should  first  turn  upon  this  question 
the  light  of  Paul’s  declaration:  “That  there  is  one 


432 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


kind  of  flesh  of  men,  another  flesh  of  beasts,  another 
of  fishes,  and  another  of  birds,”  thus  making  four 
different  kinds  of  flesh;  then  turn  upon  this  question 
the  light  of  the  Mosaic  record,  which  teaches  that 
the  fish  were  made  to  inhabit  the  waters;  that  the 
fowl  were  made  to  “fly  above  the  earth  in  the  open 
firmament  of  heaven;”  while  man  and  beast  were  to 
occupy  the  dry  land.  This  enables  us  to  see  that 
there  are  only  two  kinds  of  flesh  which  belong 
strictly  to  the  earth;  and  that  these  are  the  “ flesh  of 
men,”  and  the  “ flesh  of  beasts.” 

As  has  been  shown,  no  form  of  lust  to  which 
man  can  abandon  himself  within  the  Adamic  family 
can  corrupt  the  “ flesh  of  men.”  However  unlawful 
the  intercourse  between  men  and  women  may  be, 
the  offspring  will  be  of  pure  Adamic  flesh.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  animals.  No  hybridization  which  may 
occur  between  the  different  species  or  races  of  beasts, 
can  corrupt  the  flesh  of  beasts;  the  hybrids,  or  mon- 
grels, resulting  from  such  unions  are  the  pure  flesh 
of  beasts.  To  corrupt  the  flesh,  there  must  be  sex- 
ual intercourse  between  two  different  kinds  of  flesh, 
and  the  corrupted  flesh  will  express  itself  in  the  off- 
spring. For  example:  the  flesh  of  man  is  a differ- 

ent “kind  of  flesh”  from  that  of  beasts;  while  the 
negro,  being  simply  a race  of  the  ape  species,  be- 
longs to  the  flesh  of  beasts.  Hence,  when  a man  as- 
sociates himself  carnally  with  a negress,  the  flesh  of 
that  man  is  not  corrupted  by  his  intercourse  with 
that  beast;  neither  is  the  flesh  of  the  negress  cor- 
rupted by  her  intercourse  with  the  man;  the  flesh  of 
each  is  as  pure  after  their  sexual  contact  as  it  was  be- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


433 


fore.  But  should  their  intercourse  result  in  con- 
ception and  birth,  the  corrupted  flesh  will  express 
itself  in  the  offspring — the  mulatto — which  is  not 
the  pure  flesh  of  man,  as  was  its  Adamic  parent; 
neither  is  it  the  pure  flesh  of  beast,  as  was  its  Negro 
parent;  it  is  what  the  inspired  writer  describes  it  as 
being,  corrupted  flesh,  resulting  from  amalgamation 
between  two  different  kinds  of  flesh. 

Having  decreed  the  destruction  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  earth  by  a flood,  God  commanded  Noah 
to  build  an  ark  in  which  he  and  his  family,  together 
with  a male  and  female  of  the  fowls  and  land  ani- 
mals should  be  preserved.  “Thus  did  Noah;  ac- 
cording to  all  that  God  commanded  him,  so  did  he.” 
(See  Gen.  vi,  14,  17,  18,  19,  22).  Thus  it  is  shown 
that  man’s  criminal  relations  with  the  negro  led  God 
in  His  wrath  and  disgust  to  “ bring  upon  the  earth,” 
the  deluge,  the  most  terrible  cataclysm  the  world  has 
ever  known.  In  a previous  chapter  we  have  shown 
that  the  waters  which  God  employed  to  deluge  the 
earth,  were  celestial  waters.  Thus,  through  the 
agency  of  a deluge,  which  was  necessarily  universal, 
God  destroyed  from  the  earth,  the  corrupted  flesh 
and  those  who  were  instrumental  in  corrupting  it, 
and  restored  the  flesh  of  the  earth  to  its  original 
purity. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


Amalgamation  and  Its  Results. 

Through  the  agency  of  the  deluge,  which  was 
universal,  God  destroyed  from  the  earth  the  cor- 
rupted flesh  resulting  from  amalgamation  between 
man  and  the  negro;  and  also  destroyed  the  degraded 
amalgamationists  whose  loathsome  crimes  had  cor- 
rupted, in  God’s  eye,  the  earth  itself.  “ And  Noah 
only  remained  alive,  and  they  that  were  with  him  in 
the  ark.”  Thus  the  flesh  of  the  earth  was  restored 
to  its  original  purity.  The  negro  entered  the  ark  as 
an  ape  and  was  preserved  with  the  rest  of  the  ani- 
mals. 

As  shown  in  a previous  chapter,  Adam  and  Eve, 
our  first  parents,  were  the  most  intellectual,  cul- 
tivated, and  refined  people  that  ever  graced  the 
earth;  their  home  in  Eden  was  the  most  superb 
estate  the  world  has  ever  known;  they  not  only 
possessed  a knowledge  of  the  great  events  of  the 
Creation,  but,  with  God  as  their  tutor,  were  in- 
structed in  all  the  arts  of  civilization,  including  a 
a knowledge  of  letters.  This  great  mass  of  invalu- 
able knowledge  Adam  transmitted  to  his  descend- 
ants, who  added  to  it  such  knowledge  as  they  ac- 
quired from  time  to  time.  With  all  these  advan- 
tages in  their  favor,  we  risk  nothing  in  asserting 
that,  in  the  long  period  intervening  between  the  crea- 

434 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


435 


tion  of  man  and  the  deluge,  the  descendants  of 
Adam,  with  that  lofty  intelligence,  ambition  and 
energy,  which  characterizes  the  white,  developed 
upon  a considerable  portion  of  the  earth  a splendid 
civilization,  which  was  at  least  the  peer  of  any  of  post- 
diluvian times.  But,  unfortunately,  they  descended 
to  amalgamation  with  their  negroes — they  went  “ in 
the  way  of  Cain;”  and  so  hateful  was  this  crime  in 
the  eyes  of  God  that  He  not  only  destroyed  them 
and  their  civilization,  but  even  the  land  which  they 
occupied.  “ And  the  Lord  said,  I will  destroy  them 
with  the  earth.”  (Gen.  vi,  13).  This,  of  course 
means  that  He  would  destroy  “ them  ” and  the  por- 
tion of  the  earth  upon  which  they  dwelt. 

In  the  midst  of  this  great  antediluvian  civiliza- 
tion, Noah  and  his  family  were  born  and  reared. 
This  illustrious  family  brought  with  them  from  their 
antediluvian  home,  and  transmitted  to  their  descend- 
ants, a thorough  knowledge  of  the  arts  and  sciences 
which  had  been  accumulating  in  the  Adamic  family 
for  ages.  This  explains  the  accomplished  skill  dis- 
played by  the  most  ancient  postdiluvian  artisans, 
whose  architectural  remains  are  invariably  the  most 
superb.  Mr.  Taylor  says:  “To  see  gold  jewelry  of 

the  highest  order,  the  student  should  examine  that 
of  the  ancients,  such  as  the  Egyptians,  Greek,  and 
Etruscan  in  the  British  Museum,  and  that  of  Mediae- 
val Europe.  The  art  seems  now  to  have  passed  its 
prime,  and  become  a manufacture,  of  which  the  best 
products  are  imitations  from  the  antique.”  ( Anthro- 
pology, pp.  243,  244) . 

At  the  close  of  the  deluge  “ God  blessed  Noah 


436 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


and  his  sons  and  said  unto  them:  Be  fruitful,  and 
multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth.  And  the  fear  of 
you,  and  the  dread  of  you  shall  be  upon  every  beast 
of  the  earth,  and  upon  every  fowl  of  the  air,  upon 
all  that  moveth  upon  the  earth,  and  upon  all  the 
fishes  of  the  sea;  into  your  hands  are  they  deliv- 
ered.” (Gen.  ix,  1,2).  God  thus  gave  Noah  and  his 
sons  the  domain  over  the  earth  and  the  animals  that 
He  gave  Adam  in  the  Creation.  And  the  Lord  said 
in  His  heart,  I will  not  again  curse  the  ground  for 
man’s  sake;  for  the  imagination  of  man’s  heart  is 
evil  from  his  youth;  neither  will  I smite  everything 
living  as  I have  done.  While  the  earth  remaineth, 
seed  time  and  harvest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and  sum- 
mer and  winter,  and  day  and  night  shall  not  cease. 
(Gen.  viii;  21,  22) . 

Having  shown  the  true  origin  of  the  negro,  as 
taught  by  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences;  and  inas- 
much as  we  have  investigated  the  atheist  explana- 
tion of  his  origin  as  expressed  in  the  theory  of  de- 
velopment, it  seems  only  fair  to  examine  the  modern 
church  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  negro.  This 
theory  would  have  us  believe  that  the  negro  is  the 
son  of  Ham,  Noah’s  youngest  son;  and  that  his 
physical  and  mental  inferiority  to  his  “ white 
brother”  is  the  result  of  a curse  which  Noah  put 
upon  Ham  for  his  offensive  conduct  toward  him. 
This  absurd  theory  had  its  birth  in  the  Dark  Ages; 
and  has  descended  to  us  from  that  frightful  period 
of  ignorance,  superstition  and  crime,  and  because 
the  church  advocates  it  we  are  expected  to  accept 
it  as  “ both  sound  and  sacred.”  But  since  the  Ham- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE, 


437 


itic  origin  of  the  negro  is  opposed  to  all  the  results 
of  scientific  research,  and  to  all  observation  and  ex- 
perience, we  should  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  it 
is  in  conflict  with  the  scriptures,  upon  which  it  is 
claimed  to  be  based. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  after  the  deluge,  “ Noah 
began  to  be  an  husbandman  and  planted  a vineyard. 
And  he  drank  of  the  Avine  and  \\Tas  drunken;  and  he 
was  uncovered  in  his  tent.  And  Ham,  the  father  of 
Canaan,  saw  the  nakedness  of  his  father,  and  told 
his  brethren  without.  And  Shem  and  Japheth  took 
a garment  and  laid  it  upon  their  shoulders  and  went 
backAvard,  and  covered  the  nakedness  of  their  father; 
and  their  faces  Avere  backAvard  and  they  saAV  not  their 
father’s  nakedness.  And  Noah  aAvoke  from  his  Avine 
and  knew  Avhat  his  younger  son  had  done  unto  him. 
And  he  said,  cursed  be  Canaan;  a ser\rant  of  ser- 
vants shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren.  And  he  said, 
blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Shem;  and  Canaan  shall 
be  his  servant.  God  shall  enlarge  Japheth,  and  he 
shall  dAvell  in  the  tents  of  Shem;  and  Canaan  shall 
be  his  servant.”  (Gen.  ix,  20,  etc.). 

This  is  evidently  a simple  narrative  of  a son’s 
disrespectful  conduct  tOAvard  his  inebriated  father, 
and  the  injustice  displayed  by  the  father  in  his  man- 
ner of  resenting  it:  no  sane  mind  could  ha\Te  any 
respect  for  Noah’s  drunken  desire  to  punish  Canaan, 
an  unoffending  child,  for  an  act  which  his  father 
committed,  and  to  which  Canaan  AAras  not  a party; 
and  it  is  highly  probable  that  Avhen  Noah  recoATered 
from  the  effects  of  the  AAune  he  Avas  heartily  ashamed 
of  it,  for  Avhen  sober  he  “was  a just  man.”  Yet 


438 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


strange  to  say,  the  curse  which  Noah,  in  his  drunken 
spite  desired  to  inflict  upon  Ham’s  unoffending  little 
boy,  is  advanced  in  this  professedly  enlightened  age 
as  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  negro;  and 
stranger  still  is  the  fact  that  millions  of  intelligent 
people  accept  it.  But  let  us  investigate  this  subject 
further  and  see  what  we  are  compelled  to  believe  in 
order  to  accept  this  absurd  explanation. 

1.  We  must  disregard  the  plain  teaching  of  the 
Bible  that  Noah  performed  no  miracles,  and  believe 
that  he  performed  the  most  wonderful  miracle  the 
world  has  ever  known ; for,  if  he  transformed  a white- 
skinned, silken-haired  boy,  who  was  born  in  the 
“ image  of  God,”  into  a black-skinned,  woolly-haired 
negro  with  all  the  physical  and  mental  characters  of 
the  ape,  this  miraculous  act  stands  unsurpassed  in 
all  history.  We  are  aware  that  many,  who  recognize 
the  absurdity  of  the  whole  proposition,  attempt  cO 
minimize  the  result  by  insisting  that  this  transfor- 
mation was  not  accomplished  suddenly;  but  that 
under  the  operations  of  Noah’s  curse,  Canaan  and 
his  descendants,  in  the  course  of  time,  were  trans- 
formed into  negroes.  But  this  only  exaggerates  the 
absurdity  of  the  whole  proposition,  since  it  accredits 
Noah  with  bringing  into  existence  a law  which 
would  accomplish  this  result;  and  only  God  Him- 
self could  enact  such  a law.  Besides,  God  has  not 
only  cursed  individuals,  but  nations,  and  even  con- 
tinents, and  in  no  instance  did  His  curse  change 
their  physical  and  mental  characters.  Hence,  we 
accredit  to  Noah  a power  which  God  Himself  never 
exercised.  And  there  is  nothing  in  scripture  to  in- 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


439 


dicate  that  Noah  possessed  any  authority  or  power 
to  thus  afflict  Canaan  or  anyone  else.  In  addition 
to  this,  the  narrative  plainly  shows  that  God  was 
not  a party  to  the  disgraceful  incidents  recorded  in 
our  text,  but  that  the  whole  affair  was  confined  to 
Noah  and  his  family. 

2.  To  accept  this  theory,  we  must  believe  that  a 
wise,  just,  merciful,  and  loving  God  would  consent 
that  Noah,  in  his  drunken  rage,  should  visit  this 
terrific  curse  upon  Canaan,  an  unoffending  child; 
and  that,  in  addition  to  this,  He  would  lend  his  aid 
to  the  perpetuation  of  this  curse  on  the  descendants 
of  Canaan  throughout  all  time. 

3.  We  must  believe  that  Noah’s  curse  deprived 
Canaan  of  the  exalted  physical  and  mental  characters 
which,  as  has  been  shown,  distinguish  the  white 
from  the  negro,  and  gave  him  the  degraded  physical 
and  mental  characters  which  approximate  the  negro 
to  the  lower  organisms. 

But  the  absurdity  of  this  theory  does  not  end 
here.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  narrative  plainly 
teaches  that  Canaan  was  the  only  individual  upon 
whom  Noah  manifested  any  desire  to  visit  this  dire 
calamity;  there  was  no  white  female  cursed  and 
transformed  into  a negress  to  mate  with  Canaan,  and 
thus  enable  him  to  beget  a progeny  of  negroes. 
Hence,  in  the  absence  of  a negress,  he  had  no  alter- 
native than  to  take  a wife  from  among  the  whites; 
for  he  certainly  had  a wife,  by  whom  he  became  the 
father  of  the  Canaanites.  Our  personal  observation 
of  the  results  of  amalgamation  between  whites  and 
negroes,  enables  us  to  see  at  a glance  that  the  off- 


440 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


spring  resulting  from  the  union  of  a male  negro  and 
a white  female  would  not  be  negroes,  but  half-breeds 
— mulattoes.  These,  upon  reaching  maturity,  would 
not  have  intermarried  among  themselves,  but  would 
have  taken  husbands  and  wives  from  among  the 
whites.  The  offspring  resulting  from  these  inter- 
marriages between  whites  and  mulattoes  would  not 
have  been  negroes;  but  three-quarters  white.  Thus, 
through  the  intermarriage  of  these  mixed-bloods  with 
whites,  each  succeeding  generation  of  the  descend- 
ants of  Canaan  would  have  grown  whiter,  and  their 
hair  straighter,  until  finally  it  would  be  difficult,  if 
not  impossible,  to  distinguish  them  from  pure  whites. 
Under  these  conditions,  it  is  plain  that  Canaan  could 
never  beget  a pure-blooded  negro,  and  that  when  he 
had  lived  out  his  days  and  died,  he  would  have  been 
the  last,  as  the  advocates  of  this  theory  would  have 
us  believe  he  was  the  first  negro,  and  the  origin  of 
the  negro  of  subsequent  ages  would  remain  unex- 
plained. Thus,  when  we  view  this  narrative  in  the 
light  of  our  personal  observations,  it  at  once  becomes 
plain  that,  to  ask  us  to  accept  the  absurd  theory  of 
the  Hamitic  origin  of  the  negro,  is  simply  an  appeal 
to  our  credulity.  The  negro  is  not  the  son  of  Ham; 
he  is  not  a descendant  of  Adam.  On  the  contrary, 
as  shown  by  the  scriptures  and  the  sciences,  the  gen- 
uine negro  is  an  ape,  and,  like  all  the  apes,  he  made 
his  appearance  on  the  earth  long  prior  to  the  creation 
of  man. 

When  the  incidents  related  in  this  narration  are 
viewed  in  a rational  way,  it  becomes  plain  that  when 
Noah  awoke  from  his  wine  he  was  highly  offended 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


441 


at  the  indignities  which  Ham  had  put  upon  him; 
and  that  he  desired  to  retaliate ; and  realizing  that  it 
would  be  more  hurtful  to  Ham’s  feelings  to  say 
something  offensive  to  Canaan,  than  if  he  said  the 
same  thing  to  Ham  himself,  Noah  said:  “Cursed  be 
Canaan,  a servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  unto  his 
brethren.”  By  way  of  further  showing  his  resent- 
ment toward  Ham,  and  his  appreciation  of  the  con- 
duct of  Shem  and  Japheth,  Noah  said,  “ God  shall 
enlarge  Japheth,  and  he  shall  dwell  in  the  tents  of 
Shem;  and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant.”  That 
Noah’s  curse  upon  Canaan  was  merely  the  spiteful 
utterances  of  an  old  man  just  coming  out  of  his  cups, 
that  God  never  sanctioned  it,  and  that  it  had  no 
effect  upon  Canaan  and  his  descendants,  is  clearly 
proved  by  the  fact  that  it  was  not  fulfilled.  On  the 
contrary,  the  very  reverse  is  true;  for  example: 
While  the  Israelites,  who  were  the  descendants  of 
Shem,  were  servants  to  the  Egyptians,  who  were  the 
descendants  of  Ham,  the  Canaanites,  the  descendants 
of  Canaan,  whom  Noah  cursed,  were  the  possessors 
of  one  of  the  richest  countries  on  the  globe,  a 
country  which  God  pronounced  “a  goodly  land,” — 
“ a land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey.” 

Further  proof  that  Noah’s  drunken  utterances 
had  no  effect  upon  the  relations  of  Canaan  and  his 
descendants  to  Shem  and  Japheth  and  their  descend- 
ants, is  shown  by  the  language  of  Moses  in  explain- 
ing why  God  dispossessed  the  Canaanites  of  their 
country  and  gave  it  to  Israel.  It  was  not  in  fulfill- 
ment of  Noah’s  curse  upon  Canaan,  nor  because  of 
the  “ righteousness  of  the  Israelites,”  but  “ for  the 


442 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


wickedness  of  those  nations.”  ( Deut . ix,  4) . And 
when  the  land  of  Canaan  was  given  to  the  Israelites, 
they  were  not  ordered  to  enslave  them,  but  to 
“ utterly  destroy  them,  and  leave  nothing  alive  that 
breatheth.”  (Deut.  xx,  16,  17).  This  absurd  the- 
ory of  the  Hamitic  origin  of  the  negro  offers  the 
only  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  negro,  which 
lays  any  claim  to  a scriptural  basis.  But,  as  a mat- 
ter of  fact  this  theory  is  as  anti-scriptural,  as  it  is 
unscientific  and  irrational;  for  this  reason  it  has 
been  repudiated  by  many  of  the  leading  theologi- 
ans of  our  day.  However,  the  majority  of  the 
laity  adhere  to  it  as  one  of  the  most  cherished  tradi- 
tions of  the  church. 

After  the  deluge,  Noah  and  his  family,  with 
their  negroes,  and  other  domestic  animals,  domestic 
plants,  metallic  implements,  etc.,  settled  upon  one 
of  the  continents  and  developed  a great  civilization. 
In  the  course  of  time  they  increased  in  number,  and 
sent  out  colonies  to  other  continents;  these  colonists 
carried  with  them  their  negroes,  and  other  domestic 
animals,  domestic  plants,  and  all  the  appliances  of 
civilized  life,  and  developed  those  great  civilizations, 
the  remains  of  which  are  found  on  ever}7  continent 
of  the  earth.  “And  the  sons  of  Noah  that  went 
forth  of  the  ark  were  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth.  * 
* * These  are  the  three  sons  of  Noah,  and  by 

them  was  the  whole  earth  overspread.”  (Gen.  ix, 
18,  19).  “And  the  whole  earth  was  of  one  lan- 
guage and  one  speech.”  (Gen.  xi,  1). 

All  the  facts  indicate  that  for  a long  period  after 
the  deluge,  the  descendants  of  Noah  respected  the 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


443 


design  of  God  in  creating  man,  lived  in  obedience  to 
Divine  law,  and  maintained  that  dominion  over  the 
negro  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  animals,  which 
God  designed  them  to  have,  and  commanded  them 
to  exercise.  This  period  is  referred  to  in  the  ancient 
book  of  the  Quiches,  the  “ Popnl  Vuh,”  as  one  in 
which  the  whites  and  the  blacks  lived  together  “ in 
great  peace,”  “ and  all  seem  to  have  spoken  one  lan- 
guage.” (Bancroft’’ s Native  Races,  Vol.  V,  p.  548) . 
This  goes  fai  to  sustain  the  teachings  of  scripture 
that,  in  the  remote  past,  there  was  one  universal 
language;  then  the  black  servant  spoke  the  language 
of  his  white  master.  It  is  significant  that  the  Popul 
Vuh  mentions  only  the  whites  and  blacks,  which  in- 
dicates that,  at  that  remote  period,  they  represented 
the  population  of  the  earth;  no  mention  is  made  of 
any  brown,  red,  or  yellow  inhabitants,  and  these 
would  certainly  have  been  mentioned,  had  they  then 
existed.  The  statement  of  the  Popul  Vuh  also  indi- 
cates that  some  ancient  white  was  the  author  of  this 
old  American  book. 

Further  evidence  of  the  presence  of  whites  and 
blacks  in  America  in  the  remote  past  is  furnished  by  * 
Mr.  Donnelly  who  says,  Quetzalcoatl,  the  leader  of 
the  Nahua  family,  who  was  deified,  is  described  as  a 
white  man,  with  strong  formation  of  body,  broad  fore- 
head, large  eyes,  and  flowing  beard.  (Atlantis,  p. 
165). 

“ On  the  monuments  of  Central  America  there 
are  representations  of  bearded  men.  How  could  the 
beardless  American  Indian  have  imagined  a bearded 
race?”  (Ibid).  Prof.  Wilson  describes  the  hair  of 


444 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


the  ancient  Peruvians,  as  found  upon  their  mum- 
mies, as  “ a lightish  brown  and  of  a fineness  of  text- 
ure which  equals  that  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.” 
(Ibid) . Hayward  says  that  in  the  early  part  of  the 
century,  three  mummies  were  found  in  a cave  on  the 
south  side  of  the  Cumberland  river  (Tennessee) , who 
were  buried  in  baskets  as  the  Peruvians  generally 
buried;  their  skin  was  white  and  their  hair  auburn 
and  of  a fine  texture.  ( Natural  and  Aboriginal  His- 
tory of  Tennessee) . Mr.  Donnelly  says:  “Very  an- 

cient ruins,  showing  remains  of  large  and  remark- 
able edifices,  were  found  near  Huamanga,  and  de- 
scribed by  Ciecade  Leon.  The  native  traditions  said 
this  city  was  built  by  bearded  white  men  who  came 
there  long  before  the  Incas  and  established  a settle- 
ment.” (Ibid) . 

“Desare  Charney  has  published  in  the  North 
American  Review  for  December,  1880,  photographs  of 
a number  of  idols  exhumed  at  San  Juan  de  Teotihua- 
can,  which  show  striking  negroid  faces.”  (Ibid) . Dr. 
Le  Plongeon  says:  “Besides  the  sculptures  of  long- 
bearded  men  seen  by  the  explorer  at  Chichen  Itza, 
there  were  tall  figures  of  people  with  small  heads, 
thick  lips  and  curly,  short  hair  or  wool,  regarded  as 
negroes.  * * * We  always  see  them  as  standard 

or  parasol  bearers,  but  never  engaged  in  actual  war- 
fare.” ( Maya  Arclixology) . Thus  it  is  shown  that 
in  the  remote  past  the  relations  between  the  whites 
and  negroes  in  America  was  that  of  master  and  ser- 
vant. We  also  find  the  white  and  the  negro  figured 
on  the  monuments  of  ancient  Egypt,  the  latter  “ with 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


445 


halters  about  their  necks,”  indicating  that  they  were 
in  servitude.  ( Preadimites , p.  206) . 

Some  conception  of  the  ancient  civilization  of 
America  may  be  acquired  from  the  fact  that  such 
high  authorities  as  Charnay,  Stevens,  and  Dupaix 
pronounce  the  architectural  remains  of  Central 
America  to  equal  in  solidity,  beauty,  and  finish  the 
best  specimens  of  Egypt,  Rome,  or  Greece.  “The 
Peruvians  made  large  use  of  aqueducts,  which  they 
built  with  notable  skill,  using  Hewn  stone  and  cement, 
and  making  them  very  substantial.  One  extended 
four  hundred  and  fifty  miles  across  sierras  and  over 
rivers.  * * * The  public  roads  of  the  Peruvians 

were  most  remarkable;  they  were  built  of  masonry. 
One  of  these  roads  ran  along  the  mountains  through 
the  whole  length  of  the  empire,  from  Quito  to  Chili; 
another,  starting  from  this  at  Cuzco,  went  down  to 
the  coast,  and  extended  northward  to  the  equator. 
These  roads  were  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  feet 
wide,  were  macadamized  with  pulverized  stone  mixed 
with  lime  and  bituminous  cement,  and  were  walled 
in  by  strong  walls  more  than  a fathom  in  thickness. 
In  many  places  these  roads  were  cut  for  leagues 
through  the  rock;  great  ravines  were  filled  up  with 
solid  masonry;  rivers  were  crossed  by  suspension 
bridges,  used  here  ages  before  their  introduction  into 
Europe.”  (Ibid) . 

Of  Gran-Chimu,  Mr.  Donnelly  says:  “Its  re- 

mains exist  to-day,  the  wonder  of  the  southern  con- 
tinent, covering  not  less  than  twenty  square  miles. 
Tombs,  temples,  and  palaces  arise  on  every  hand, 
ruined  but  still  traceable.  Immense  pyramidal 


446 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


structures,  some  of  them  half  a mile  in  circuit;  vast 
areas  shut  in  by  massive  walls,  each  containing  its 
water  tank,  its  shops,  municipal  edifices,  and  the 
dwellings  of  its  inhabitants,  and  each  a branch  of  a 
larger  organization;  prisons,  furnaces  for  smelting 
metals,  and  almost  every  concomitant  of  civilization 
existed  in  the  ancient  Chimu  capitol.  One  of  the 
pyramids,  called  the  ‘Temple  of  the  Sun/  is  812  feet 
long  by  470  wide  and  150  high.  These  vast  struc- 
tures have  been  in  ruins  for  centuries.”  (Ibid). 
The  splendid  civilization  of  the  ancient  Americans 
extended  from  New  York  to  Chili;  and  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific;  it  was  of  the  same  high  order 
as  those  of  Java,  India,  Egypt,  Rome,  Greece,  etc. 

The  magnitude  of  those  superb  old  civilizations, 
extending  over  the  various  continents,  indicates  that 
their  development  was  the  work  of  ages;  and  that 
the  nations  which  developed  them  must  have  num- 
bered their  whites  and  negroes  by  the  hundreds  of 
millions.  What  became  of  them?  What  became  of 
those  hundreds  of  millions  of  whites?  They  have 
long  since  disappeared  from  three  of  the  five  conti- 
nents; a mere  remnant  of  their  white  descendants 
are  left,  and  these  are  practically  confined  to  Europe 
and  America.  What  became  of  those  hundreds  of 
millions  of  negroes?  They  have  disappear  eel  ~from 
four  of  the  five  continents.  Their  pure-blooded  de- 
scendants are  now  confined  to  a few  tribes  in  Africa. 
Where  did  all  these  so-called  brown,  red,  and  yellow 
“ races  of  men  ” come  from  which  we  find  in  posses- 
sion of  the  remains  of  these  great  civilizations,  and 
which  in  the  sum  of  their  characters  are  not  distin- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


447 


guishable  from  the  known  offspring  of  whites  and 
negroes  in  our  midst?  These  miserable,  worthless 
creatures  never  developed  the  civilization  they  pos- 
sess, and  as  a rule  they  have  no  idea  who  did.  In 
many  cases  the  remains  of  superb  civilizations  are 
found  in  sections  which  are  now  inhabited  by  wild, 
hunting  tribes  of  savages. 

The  atheist,  with  his  theory  of  development  can 
throw  no  light  on  these  grand  old  civilizations ; their 
very  existence  goes  far  to  prove  the  falsity  of  his 
theory.  Ages  ago  these  superb  old  civilizations  were 
the  centres  of  wealth,  culture,  and  refinement;  their 
crumbling  ruins,  now  often  found  in  pathless  jungles, 
or  in  barren  wastes — the  abodes  of  barbarians  and 
savages — tells  a tale  of  retrogression  that  is  fright- 
ful to  contemplate. 

When  we  appeal  to  the  scriptures  for  informa- 
tion as  to  the  architects  of  these  ancient  civilizations, 
wre  are  taught  that  Noah  and  his  family  were  the 
finest  specimens  of  antediluvian  culture  and  refine- 
ment; that  they  built  the  ark,  and  preserved  the 
animals  and  the  domestic  plants  from  the  deluge;  that 
they  transmitted  to  their  descendants  their  knowl- 
edge and  refinement;  and  that  by  them  “was  the 
whole  earth  overspread.”  That  they  were  whites  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  all  the  great  civilized  nations 
of  antiquity  were  their  descendants,  and  were  whites. 
When  we  appeal  to  the  sciences  for  light  on  this  sub- 
ject, we  are  taught  that,  “No  negro  civilization  has 
ever  appeared;  no  Mongolian  one  has  greatly  devel- 
oped.” “The  white  is  pre-eminently,  the  man  of 
civilization.”  When  we  appeal  to  profane  history  we 


448 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


are  taught  that  the  white  has  been  in  all  ages  of  his 
history  what  he  is  to-day — the  great,  building,  develop- 
ing power  of  the  earth.  When  we  appeal  to  tradition, 
we  find  that  in  many  cases  the  savages  now  in  pos- 
session of  these  old  civilizations  have  traditions  that 
their  ancestors  were  white.  When  we  appeal  to  the 
monuments,  we  find  the  bearded  white  figured  on 
monuments  as  old  as  the  edifices  and  other  evidences 
of  these  by-gone  civilizations,  and  the  whole  crumb- 
ling into  decay  from  age  and  neglect.  And,  as  has 
been  shown,  the  negro  also,  is  sometimes  figured  on 
these  ancient  monuments;  and  we  have  also  shown 
that,  in  those  remote  ages  the  white  and  the  negro 
held  the  same  relation  to  each  other  that  they  have 
in  all  subsequent  ages — the  white  was  the  master — 
the  thinker;  the  negro  was  the  servant — the  worker. 
If  we  desired  further  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
the  whites  and  the  negroes  on  the  various  continents, 
in  the  remote  past,  it  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
so-called  brown,  red,  and  yellow  races,  now  in  pos- 
session of  the  remains  of  these  old  civilizations,  are, 
in  the  sum  of  their  characters,  identical  with  the 
known  offspring  of  whites  and  negroes  in  our  midst. 

No  naturalist  will  deny  that  Blumenbach’s  di- 
vision of  the  so-called  “human  species”  into  “five 
races  of  men,”  was  based  strictly  upon  geographical 
lines,  and  not  upon  what  the  atheist  would  term 
racial  distinctions.  In  Europe  the  complexions  range 
from  pure  white  to  dark  brown.  In  Africa  they 
range  from  shades  so  light  as  to  be  almost  white,  to 
brown,  red,  yellow,  and  pure  black.  In  Asia  they 
range  from  light  yellow  to  brown  and  black.  In 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


449 


Oceanica  the  complexions  are  light  yellow,  copper- 
colored,  and  dark  brown. 

In  America,  prior  to  its  discovery  by  Columbus, 
the  complexions  ranged  from  nearly  white  in  the 
Mandans,  Tuscaroras,  Zunians,  etc.,  to  brown,  red, 
yellow,  and  black.  Among  the  Mandans  were  found 
blue,  gray,  and  hazel  eyes,  while  many  had  hair  that 
was  white  from  infancy  to  old  age.  {Gatlin) . 
Among  the  so-called  Malay,  Indian,  and  Mongolian 
races  are  to  be  found  individuals  and  tribes  whose 
resemblance  to  each  other  is  so  strong  as  to  make 
it  impossible  to  distinguish  them.  And  we  might 
add  representatives  from  Southern  Europe  and  from 
certain  African  tribes.  In  support  of  our  position 
we  quote  from  Fontaine,  who  says:  “If  a congrega- 
tion of  twelve  representatives  from  Malacca,  China, 
Japan,  Mongolia,  Sandwich  Islands,  Chili,  Peru, 
Brazil,  Chickasaws,  Comanches,  etc.,  were  dressed 
alike,  or  undressed  and  unshaven,  the  most  skillful 
anatomist  could  not,  from  their  appearance,  separate 
them.”  ( How  the  World  was  Peopled,  pp.  147,  244) . 
Fontaine  might  well  have  added  representatives  of 
our  mulattoes  to  his  list,  as  shown  by  the  following: 

“Belle  Weds  A Negro. 

“White  Girl  Bought  a Country  Home  Where  She 
Lives  with  Her  Dusky  Groom. 

“Special  to  the  Post-Dispatch. 

“Philadelphia,  May  4. — Miss  Emma  Bethel, 
whose  father  was  a physician  of  note,  and  who  was 
a leader  in  exclusive  society  in  West  Philadelphia, 
has  been  married  to  Howard  Lee,  colored,  formerly 


450 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


employed  as  butler  by  John  C.  Uhle,  a relative  of 
the  young  woman.  While  residing  with  the  Uhles 
several  months  ago  Miss  Bethel  met  Lee,  who  acted 
as  her  coachman  when  she  drove  out  to  dispense 
charity.  Mr.  Uhle  heard  rumors  that  the  coachman 
was  in  love  with  Miss  Bethel,  and  discharged  him. 
Not  long  afterwards  Miss  Bethel,  who  had  inde- 
pendent means,  announced  that  she  intended  to 
purchase  a summer  residence  in  Hammonton,  N.  J. 
After  Miss  Bethel  took  possession  of  the  house,  Lee 
also  appeared.  Shortly  Miss  Bethel  and  he  called 
upon  the  Rev.  Mr.  Albrum  and  were  married.  Mrs. 
Lee  is  pretty  and  is  30  years  old.  While  living  here 
she  was  a liberal  contributor  to  the  Episcopal 
Church,  which  she  attended,  and  was  active  in  the 
work  of  the  parish.  Lee  is  tall  and  quite  dusky.  * 
* * A dispatch  from  Hammonton,  N.  J.,  says  that 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Lee  live  on  the  outskirts  of  the  town. 
The  man  has  passed  as  an  Indian,  Mrs.  Lee  said 
to-day.”  (St.  Louis  Post- Dispatch,  May  4,  1901) . 

Thus,  we  find  that  we  are  producing  Indians 
here  in  the  United  States,  by  amalgamation  between 
whites  and  negroes.  But  this  is  merely  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  predictions  of  the  most  competent  ob- 
servers. Referring  to  the  writings  of  Mr.  Reclus, 
and  l’Abbe  Brasseur  de  Bonbourg,  Quatrefages  says: 
“ Both  these  authors  seem  to  admit  that  at  the  end 
of  a given  time,  whatever  be  their  origin,  all  the  de- 
scendants of  whites  or  of  negroes  who  have  emigrated 
to  America  will  become  red-skins.”  (The  Human 
Species,  p.  255) . What  is  the  “ red-skins?  ” Simply 
a savage.  Thus,  under  the  demoralizing,  degrading 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


451 


influences  of  our  social,  political,  and  religious  sys- 
tems, we  are  descending  to  savagery — to  ruin  in  time 
and  to  hades  in  eternity.  Further  evidence  of  this 
is  found  in  the  following: 

“Special  to  The  Post-Dispatch: 

“ Chicago,  July  17 — ‘The  American  people  in 
their  physical  character  are  turning  more  and 
more  like  Indians  every  day.  The  only  thing  that 
prevents  the  people  of  the  United  States  from 
becoming  exactly  similar  to  the  nomadic  tribes  of 
Indians  in  facial  characteristics  is  the  intermarriage 
between  residents  of  this  country  and  emigrants 
from  foreign  lands.’  This  is  the  statement  made  by 
Prof.  Frederick  Starr  to  his  class  in  anthropology  at 
the  University  of  Chicago  to-day.  ‘ If  the  immigra- 
tion laws  should  once  be  strictly  enforced,  a few 
years  would  see  us  all  Indians.  Once  make  the  cry 
general  that  America  is  being  used  as  the  dumping 
ground  of  European  nations,  and  so  stir  up  public 
spirit  as  to  exclude  foreign  elements,  and  it  would 
only  take  a few  years  for  the  Indian  to  haunt  his 
old  time  pastures  again.’”  (St.  Louis  Post-Dispatch , 
July  17,  1901). 

Though  perhaps  not  intended  as  such,  it  is 
nevertheless  plain  that  no  more  severe  arraignment 
of  our  social,  political,  and  religious  systems;  no 
greater  exposure  of  the  emptiness  of  our  accustomed 
boast,  that  “ we  are  an  enlightened,  progressive  peo- 
ple; ” no  more  positive  proof  that  we  are  in  reality  a 
dying  nation — that  we  are  descending  to  savagery — 
than  is  found  in  the  fact  stated  by  Prof.  Starr,  that 
“the  American  people  in  their  physical  characters 


452 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


are  becoming  more  and  more  like  Indians  every 
day;”  that  the  only  thing  that  prevents  us  from  be- 
coming Indians  is  our  intermarriage  with  emi- 
grants from  foreign  lands  and  that  if  the  foreign  ele- 
ment was  excluded,  “ it  would  only  take  a few  years 
for  the  Indian  to  haunt  his  old  time  pastures  again.” 
In  other  words,  but  for  the  influence  of  white  stock 
from  Europe,  we  would  soon  become  Indians,  and 
consequently  savages.  This  humiliating  admission, 
coming  from  a distinguished  American  anthropolo- 
gist, should  arouse  us  to  a sense  of  our  danger. 

Prof.  Starr  offers  no  explanation  of  why  the 
American  people  are  turning  to  Indians,  neither 
does  he  suggest  a remedy;  he  merely  intimates  that 
we  are  kept  white  by  the  inflow  of  Europeans;  but 
he  fails  to  show  that  we  draw  our  white  stock  onty 
from  northern  and  central  Europe,  while  unfortu- 
nately the  great  bulk  of  emigrants  come  from  the 
dark,  mixed-blooded  nations  of  southern  Europe.  It 
is  easy  to  see  that  our  population  of  supposed  whites 
is  steadily  growing  darker,  and  that  our  population 
of  supposed  negroes  is  steadily  growing  correspond- 
ingly lighter.  This  is  due  solely  to  amalgamation, 
which  tends  to  mix  all  the  white  blood  with  all  the 
black  blood.  When  this  disastrous  result  is  con- 
summated, the  population  of  this  country  will  settle 
down  to  about  the  level  of  the  Indian;  in  sections 
where  the  white  blood  largely  predominates,  we  will 
duplicate  the  Mandans,  Tuscaroras,  Zunians,  etc.  In 
sections  where  the  negro  blood  largely  predominates, 
we  will  duplicate  the  black  tribes  of  California,  the 
Raws  of  Kansas,  the  Carribs,  etc.  Under  the  curses 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


453 


of  God,  our  civilization  will  be  laid  in  ruins,  and  our 
descendants  of  a few  centuries  hence  will  be  naked 
savages  in  the  woods — the  Indian  will  haunt  his  old 
time  pastures  again. 

The  fact  that,  by  a few  centuries  of  amalgama- 
tion between  whites  and  negroes,  we  have  produced 
Indians,  and  that,  as  a result  of  this  loathsome  crime, 
our  whole  population  is  becoming  “ more  and  more 
like  Indians  every  day,”  is  the  most  positive  proof 
that  the  original  Indian  is  simply  the  result  of  amal- 
gamation between  the  whites  and  negroes  who  set- 
tled upon  this  continent  after  the  deluge.  It  is  an 
affront  to  our  intelligence  to  ask  us  to  believe  that, 
in  the  remote  past,  the  same  class  of  creatures  were 
produced  by  development  from  the  ape  that  we  now 
produce  by  amalgamation  between  whites  and  ne- 
groes. “ Besides  Indians,  we  are  producing  Malays 
by  the  tens  of  thousands;  the  absolute  similarity  be- 
tween the  characters  of  many  of  our  mulattoes  and 
the  Filipinos  has  led  the  American  soldiers  in  the 
Philippines  to  pronounce  the  Filipinos  negroes. 
Aguinaldo  can  be  duplicated  a thousand  times  over 
among  our  mulattoes.  In  addition  to  this,  a close 
observer  can  see  good  specimens  of  Chinese,  Japan- 
ese, Koreans,  etc.,  among  our  mulattoes.  Yet  the 
atheists  have  deceived  the  whole  world  into  believ- 
ing that  these  so-called  Malays,  Indians,  and  Mon- 
golians are  lower  races  of  men  which  have  descended 
from  the  ape  in  remote  ages,  and  which,  in  their  vari- 
ous stages  of  barbarism  and  savagery,  present  so 
many  cases  of  arrested  development.  Surely,  there 
are  not  two  ways  of  producing  these  creatures,  one 


454 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EYE. 


by  amalgamation  between  whites  and  negroes,  the 
other  by  development  from  the  ape. 

As  shown  in  a previous  chapter,  the  pure  white 
and  the  pure  black — man  and  the  negro — are  the 
originals  whom  God  made;  this  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  neither  can  be  produced  by  any  cross,  and  neither 
can  survive  a cross.  The  progeny  resulting  from  any 
cross  to  which  either  man  or  the  negro  is  subjected 
are  neither  man  nor  negro,  but  mixed-bloods.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  have  demonstrated  here  in  the 
United  States  that  the  physical  and  mental  charac- 
ters of  the  so-called  brown,  red,  and  yellow  races  can 
be  produced  by  centuries  of  amalgamation  between 
whites  and  negroes. 

Amalgamation  is  one  of  the  most  stealthy 
crimes,  often  requiring  centuries  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  its  work  of  absorbing  and  destroying 
both  the  whites  and  the  negroes  in  a nation.  When 
this  crime  begins,  the  relation  of  master  and  servant 
usually  exists  between  the  whites  and  negroes,  and 
it  is  at  first  confined  to  the  white  males  and  the  black 
females.  Upon  reaching  maturity  a greater  or  less 
number  of  their  mixed-blooded  progeny,  both  males 
and  females,  will  mate  with  negroes;  besides  more  or 
less  of  the  white  males  will  have  paramours  among 
both  negroes  and  mixed-bloods.  The  negro  thus  be- 
comes the  prey  not  only  of  the  white  males,  but  the 
mixed-bloods  of  both  male  and  female.  Under  these 
conditions,  it  is  simply  a question  of  time  when  the 
negroes  will  be  absorbed  and  destroyed,  and  their 
descendants  become  mixed-bloods.  We  have  dem- 
onstrated this  in  the  United  States.  The  systematic 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


455 


importation  of  negroes  from  Africa  to  this  country 
began  in  A.  D.  1619;  though  a few  negroes  were  im- 
ported here  by  the  Spaniards  as  early  as  the  16th 
century.  Amalgamation  at  once  began,  and  to-day 
there  is  not  a 'pure  blooded  negro  in  America;  the  last 
one  has  disappeared  from  this  continent,  and  their 
descendants  are  all  mixed-bloods;  however  black 
their  skin,  or  however  woolly  their  hair  may  be,  they 
will  present  in  some  character  the  evidence  of  cross- 
ing. Since  amalgamation  with  the  whites  and  mixed- 
bloods  has  destroyed  the  pure  negro  in  our  midst,  it 
is  easy  to  see  that  amalgamation  between  the  whites 
and  mixed-bloods  will  destroy  the  pure  whites. 
When  this  dire  calamity  is  accomplished,  this  con- 
tinent will  again  be  populated  with  mixed-bloods — 
Indians.  The  fact  that  amalgamation  will  destroy 
both  the  pure  white  and  the  pure  negro  is  easily 
demonstrated.  Let  a pure  white  take  a pure  negress 
to  wife  and  raise  a family;  when  the  white  father 
and  negro  mother  dies,  the  pure  white  and  the  pure 
negro  in  that  family  are  gone;  their  progeny  are 
mixed-bloods;  it  is  plain  that  this  would  hold  good 
with  a nation  or  a continent  as  the  result  of  amal- 
gamation between  whites  and  negroes;  though  in  the 
case  of  a nation  it  might  require  centuries.  Let  us 
bear  in  mind  that  neither  the  white  nor  the  negro 
can  absorb  the  mixed-bloods;  on  the  contrary,  the 
mixed-bloods  absorb  both  the  white  and  the  negro 
when  either  are  brought  in  sexual  contact  with  them; 
their  offspring  are  mixed-bloods,  without  reference 
to  whether  they  are  mated  with  whites,  negroes  or 


456 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


mixed-bloods.  For  this  reason,  they  are  a danger- 
ous, destructive  element,  and  one  which  God  detests. 

Woman,  the  female  side  or  part  of  man,  is  the 
vital  point  of  the  Adamic  Creation ; and  so  long  as 
the  marriages  of  the  Adamic  females  of  a nation  are 
confined  to  Adamic  males,  the  Adamic  stock  of  that 
nation  cannot  be  absorbed  by  amalgamation.  While 
amalgamation  between  the  Adamic  males,  negresses 
and  mixed-blooded  females  is  being  carried  on,  the 
Adamic  females,  declining  to  descend  to  the  low  level 
of  the  negro  and  mixed-bloods,  are  confining  their 
marriage  relations  to  the  Adamic  males,  and  are  pro- 
ducing pure  Adamic  offspring  to  much  the  same  extent 
as  if  no  amalgamation  was  going  on.  But  unfortunate- 
ly, the  mixed-blooded  progeny  of  the  Adamic  males 
and  negresses  and  mixed-blooded  females,  by  mating 
continuously  with  Adamic  males,  grow  whiter  and 
whiter,  and  their  hair  longer  and  straighter  with  each 
succeeding  generation,  until  finally  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult for  the  ordinary  observer  to  distinguish  them 
from  pure  whites.  They  may  then  remove  to  some 
distant  section  of  country  and  pass  themselves  off  as 
pure  whites,  and  inter-marry  with  Adamic  females. 
The  offspring  of  these  unhallowed  unions  will  marry 
pure  whites,  and  perhaps  never  know  that  they  are 
of  negro  extraction;  but  the  Adamic  stock  will  be 
absorbed  and  destroyed  as  far  as  they  inter-marry 
with  them.  In  the  meantime,  God  may  visit  His 
curse  upon  them  in  the  form  of  famine,  pestilence, 
war,  etc.,  to  force  them  to  abandon  their  evil  way; 
should  they  persist  in  it,  He  may  destroy  them  and 
lay  their  civilizations  in  ruins;  or,  He  may  abandon 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE. 


457 


them  to  the  natural  results  of  their  crime;  in  this 
event  the  negroes  will  first  be  absorbed  by  associa- 
tion with  the  white  males  and  the  mixed-bloods;  the 
whites  will  then  be  absorbed  through  their  associa- 
tions with  the  mixed-bloods.  When  this  occurs, 
that  nation’s  relation  to  God,  its  relations  to  the 
earth  and  the  animals  has  completely  changed.  Its 
former  population  of  whites  and  negroes  were  parts 
of  God’s  Creation,  while  their  mixed-blooded  pro- 
geny have  resulted  from  the  violation  of  His  law. 
This  change,  which  required  centuries  for  its  accom- 
plishment, was  so  gradual  as  to  pass  unnoticed  at 
the  time;  and  the  cause  of  it  was  never  investigated 
and  ascertained.  When  the  whites  are  all  destroyed, 
their  country,  with  its  national  name,  wealth,  relig- 
ion, their  knowledge  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  is 
inherited  by  their  mixed-blooded  descendants;  when 
the  white  blood  largely  predominates  in  them,  they 
may,  under  favorable  circumstances,  retain  more  or 
less  of  their  inherited  civilization  for  an  indefinite 
period,  but  they  add  nothing  to  it;  and  when  they 
lose  an  art,  or  any  part  of  their  inherited  knowledge, 
they  never  regain  it;  such  was  the  case  with  the 
Mexicans,  Peruvians,  Chinese,  Japanese,  Hindoos, 
Greeks,  Turks,  Egyptians,  etc.  But  in  most  cases 
they  are  driven  from  their  civilization  in  the  forest, 
and,  with  no  capacity  to  develop  a civilization,  they 
descend  to  savagry;  this  is  shown  in  the  case  of  the 
Navajoes.  They  were  an  agricultural  community 
■when  the  Spaniards  entered  Mexico.  When  attacked 
by  the  Spaniards  they  abandoned  their  homes  and 
fled  to  the  mountains;  they  made  no  effort  to  de- 


458 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


velop  a civilization,  but  became  a wild,  blood-thirsty- 
band  of  savages,  and  have  so  remained.  ( Baldwin , 
Ancient  America,  p.  68) . This  explains  the  origin 
of  the  wild  hunting  tribes  of  browns,  reds,  and  yel- 
lows which  are  found  upon  the  various  continents. 

Under  the  influence  of  the  law  of  heredity,  any 
physical  or  mental  character  is  transmittable.  “In- 
tellectual qualities  are  transmitted,  as  well  as  phy- 
sical characters.”  (Topinard) . When  amalgama- 
tion between  the  Adamic  males  and  the  negresses 
and  mixed-blooded  females  in  a nation  is  carried  on 
until  the  mixed-blooded  males  are  able  to  impose 
themselves  on  the  Adamic  females  as  whites  and  in- 
ter-marry  with  them  the  Adamic  Creation  is  success- 
fully assailed  at  its  vital  point — the  female;  and  only 
the  intervention  of  the  Almighty  could  prevent  its 
Adamic  stock  in  that  nation  from  being  ultimately 
destroyed.  The  false  teaching  of  atheism  that  the 
negro  is  a lower  “ race  of  man”  is  now  beginning  to 
degrade  woman  to  the  level  of  the  negro;  here  and 
there  in  this  country  Adamic  females  are  manying 
those  whom  they  recognize  as  negroes;  but  to  the 
honor  of  the  sex  it  may  be  said  that  the  women  who 
thus  lower  themselves  are  either  moral  degenerates 
or  religious  fanatics. 

The  fact  that  the  negro  possesses  the  moral 
faculty  to  some  extent  is  regarded  by  many  as  evi- 
dence that  he  is  a man — that  he  has  a soul.  But 
before  hastily  deciding  that  this  is  so,  we  should  re- 
member that  there  are  three  distinct  creations — 
matter,  mind,  and  soul;  and  that  every  thing  in  the 
material  universe  is  a part  of  one  or  the  other  of  these 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


459 


three  creations.  This  being  true,  we  should  first  as- 
certain which  of  these  creations  the  moral  faculty 
is  a part  of.  Since  it  does  not  exist  in  the  plant  it  is 
evidently  not  a part  of  the  matter  creation.  Hence, 
it  is  either  a part  of  the  mind  creation,  or  the  soul 
creation.  If  it  is  a part  of  the  soul  creation  it  is  pe- 
culiar to  man.  If  it  is  a part  of  the  mind  creation 
the  animals  share  it  with  man.  It  is  the  moral  fac- 
ulty which  enables  man  to  distinguish  between  right 
and  wrong;  that  it  is  right  to  obey,  and  wrong  to 
disobey  God.  But  for  the  presence  of  this  faculty 
in  man,  he  could  not  justly  be  held  responsible  for 
his  acts.  The  same  is  true  of  the  animals;  it  is  the 
moral  faculty  in  them  that  enables  them  to  under- 
stand that  it  is  right  to  obey,  and  wrong  to  disobey 
their  master.  Then,  if  by  accident,  or  disease,  the 
mind  of  either  man  or  the  animal  is  impaired,  the 
moral  faculty  is  correspondingly  impaired;  if,  as  in 
the  case  of  an  insane  man,  woman,  or  animal,  the 
mind  is  affected  to  such  an  extent  as  to  temporarily 
or  permanently  destroy  the  reasoning  faculty,  the 
moral  faculty  is  temporarily  or  permanently  de- 
stroyed, as  the  case  may  be;  the  very  moment  that 
either  man  or  the  animal  ceases  to  be  a rational 
being,  he  ceases  to  be  a moral  being.  Then,  if  his 
mind  is  restored,  his  moral  faculty  is  at  once  re- 
stored; and  again,  the  moral,  like  any  attribute  of 
the  mind,  may  be  cultivated  and  developed,  or  it 
may  be  neglected  and  dwarfed ; this  is  easily  seen  by 
comparing  the  cultivated  with  the  uncultivated  man, 
or  the  domesticated  with  the  undomesticated  ani- 
mal. Thus,  it  is  shown  that  the  moral  faculty  is  a 


460 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


part  of  the  mind  creation,  which  is  common  to  man 
and  the  animals.  Hence,  the  mere  fact  that  the  ne- 
gro possesses  the  moral  faculty  in  any  degree  is  no 
evidence  that  he  is  a man,  or  that  he  has  a soul.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  mixed-bloods.  The  moral  fac- 
ulty being  a part  of  the  intellectual,  it  is  transmitti- 
ble.  Hence,  the  mixed-blood  might  in  some  cases 
inherit  the  high  moral  characters  of  the  white,  to- 
gether with  other  intellectual  qualities.  Quatre- 
fages,  in  discussing  the  results  of  crossing,  says: 
“ In  the  formation  of  a new  being,  the  action  of  he- 
redity is  divided  into  as  many  cases  as  there  are  char- 
ters to  transmit.  Both  father  and  mother  tend  to 
reproduce  themselves  in  their  offspring;  there  is, 
consequently  a struggle  between  both  natures.  But 
the  battle,  if  we  may  use  the  expression,  results  in  a 
number  of  single  combats  in  which  each  parent  may 
be  in  turn  victor  or  vanquished.  * * We  know 

how  far  this  victory  can  go,  and  how  the  two  natures 
can,  so  to  speak,  divide  the  product  between  them. 
Lislet  Geoffroy,  entirely  a negro  physically,  though 
entirely  a white  in  character,  intelligence,  and  apti- 
tudes, is  a striking  example  of  it.”  ( The  Human 
Species,  p.  268) . This  explains  why  a mixed-blood 
sometimes  possesses  fine  intellectual  qualities  occa- 
sionally allied  with  rather  elevated  moral  qualities; 
these  were  inherited  from  some  Adamic  ancestor; 
but  as  a rule,  the  intellectual  and  moral  characters 
of  the  mixed-bloods  approximate  those  of  their  ne- 
gro ancestors,  and  are  of  a very  low  order. 

The  following  estimates  of  brain  weights,  col- 
lected by  Sanford  B.  Hunt,  of  the  Federal  army  dur- 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


461 


mg  the  late  civil  war  in  the  United  States,  show  that 
the  blood  of  the  white  tends  to  elevate,  and  that  the 
blood  of  the  negro  tends  to  lower  the  mentality  of 
individuals,  tribes  and  nations: 


24  whites, 

Weight  of  Brain. 
Grammes. 

. . 1424 

25  three  parts  white,  . . 

. . 1390 

47  half  white,  or  mulattoes, 

. . 1334 

51  one-quarter  white,  . . 

. . 1319 

95  an  eighth  white,  . . . 

. . 1308 

22  a sixteenth  white,  . . 

. . 1280 

141  pure  negroes,  . . . 

. . 1331” 

— ( Tojpinard , Anthropology,  p.  312). 

Commenting  on  these  estimates,  Topinard  says: 
“ This  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  mixed-breeds 
assimilate  the  bad  more  readily  than  the  good/’ 
(Ibid). 

These  estimates  are  quoted  by  Winchell,  Quatre- 
fages,  and  other  scientists.  Though  fair  to  the 
negro,  and  the  grades  of  mixed-bloods  referred  to, 
it  is  plain  that  they  place  the  white  at  a disadvan- 
tage, since  they  are  evidently  confined  to  the  com- 
mon white  soldiers;  the  higher  grades  of  officers, 
and  the  most  intellectual  among  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  were  not  represented;  if  they  had 
been,  the  average  brain  weight  of  the  whites  would 
have  been  raised  to  the  average  of  Noachites — 1500 
grammes.  However,  Hunt’s  estimates  show  that 
man  (the  white)  is  a distinct  creation,  and  that 
whites  and  negroes  are  not  different  races  of  one 
species  of  animal.  Breeders  who  attempt  to  pro- 
duce new  varieties  by  crossing,  experience  great  dif- 


462 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


ficulty  because  of  the  disposition  of  the  offspring  to 
revert  to  one  or  the  other  of  its  parent  stocks.  But 
as  shown  by  Hunt’s  tables,  if  the  offspring  of  man 
and  the  negro  were  mated  with  pure  negroes  for 
ages,  they  would  never  revert  to  the  negro;  but 
while  approximating  a lower  grade  of  ape  would  re- 
tain the  characters  of  mixed-bloods.  The  same  re- 
sult must  necessarily  ensue  if  the  offspring  of  whites 
and  negroes  were  mated  continuously  with  whites 
for  ages;  they  could  never  revert  to  the  pure  white; 
the  ape  can  never  be  bred  out,  nor  the  soul  creation 
bred  in,  the  offspring  of  man  and  the  negro;  though 
they  might  take  on  more  and  more  the  physical  and 
mental  characters  of  the  white,  they  must  remain 
mixed-bloods.  The  fact  that  the  mixed-bloods  can- 
not revert  to  either  of  their  parent  stocks  proves 
that  whites  and  negroes  are  not  of  the  same  hind  of 
flesh. 

If  the  white  and  the  negro  were  different  races 
of  one  species  of  animal,  their  immediate  offspring 
would  take  a position  in  point  of  brain  weight,  mid- 
way between  the  two,  with  a brain  weight  of  1,377-2- 
grammes;  but,  as  Hunt  shows,  the  half  white  has  an 
average  brain  weight  of  1,334  grammes;  this  is  only 
three  grammes  in  excess  of  that  of  the  negro,  and  90 
grammes  less  than  that  of  the  white  soldier.  Hunt 
also  shows  that  if  the  half  white  is  mated  with  the 
pure  negro,  the  brain  weight  of  their  offspring — the 
one-quarter  white,  is  lowered  to  1,319  grammes;  this 
is  12  grammes  less  than  that  of  the  pure  negro;  and 
if  the  one-quarter  white  is  mated  with  the  pure  ne- 
gro, the  brain  weight  of  their  offspring — the  one- 


463 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 

eighth  white,  is  reduced  to  1,308  grammes;  and  if 
the  one-eighth  white  is  mated  with  the  pure  negro, 
the  brain  weight  of  their  offspring — the  one-six- 
teenth white,  falls  to  1,280  grammes.  This  is  23 
grammes  below  that  of  the  pure  negro.  This  indi- 
cates that,  with  this  rapid  fall  of  brain  weight  with 
each  succeeding  generation,  and  the  process  contin- 
ued, the  brain  weight  of  their  offspring  would  ulti- 
mately fall  to  the  level  of  that  of  the  gorilla,  which 
is  600  grammes,  according  to  Huxley. 

Thus  is  shown  that  the  mixed-bloods,  in  whom 
the  negro  blood  largely  predominates  over  that 
of  the  white,  is  more  degraded  and  ape-like  in 
their  physical  and  mental  organisms,  and  conse- 
quently more  depraved  in  their  modes  of  life,  cus- 
toms, etc.,  than  the  pure  negro.  This  explains  the 
following  facts  stated  by  Winchell:  “The  measure- 

ments already  given  show  the  Australian  to  possess 
an  organism  quite  inferior  to  that  of  the  negro.  In 
intelligence  he  is  said  to  be  so  low  as  to  be  unable 
to  count  five.  Of  the  Aetas  of  the  Philippines,  De 
la  Geronniere  says  they  gave  him  the  impression  of 
being  a great  tribe  of  monkeys;  their  voices  recalled 
the  short  cry  of  these  animals,  and  their  movements 
strengthened  the  analogy.  * * * Some  of  the 

American  tribes  remain  at  the  lowest  point  of  deg- 
radation. This  is  the  case  with  the  Fuegians,  and 
the  Botecudos  of  Brazil  have  often  been  cited.  Of 
the  latter,  Lallemand  says:  ‘I  am  sadly  convinced 

that  they  are  monkeys  with  two  hands.’  ” (Ibid,  pp. 
267,  268) . 

The  above  facts,  when  viewed  in  the  light  of 


464 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


Hunt’s  estimates,  show  the  effects  of  amalgamation 
upon  cerebral  development,  and  clearly  shows  how 
these  so-called  brown,  red,  and  yellow  races  origi- 
nated. When  the  white  is  mated  with  the  negro,  the 
brain  weight  of  their  offspring  is  neither  that  of  the 
white  nor  that  of  the  negro;  the  same  is  true  of  their 
physical  characters,  they  are  neither  white  nor  black, 
but  some  shade  of  brown,  red,  or  yellow.  The  half 
white,  when  viewed  from  the  atheist  standpoint,  and 
compared  with  their  white  and  black  ancestors,  pre- 
sents all  the  physical  characters  of  a new  “ race  of 
men,”  with  a brain  weight  of  1,334  grammes.  Say 
there  were  3,000  of  these  half  whites,  and  that  1,000 
of  them  found  mates  among  themselves;  their  off- 
spring would  be  half  white  with  a brain  weight  of 
1,334  grammes.  Let  another  thousand  of  the  half 
whites  mate  with  pure  whites,  their  progeny  would 
be  three-quarters  white,  with  a brain  weight  of  1,390 
grammes.  We  would  thus  produce  another  so-called 
“race  of  men.”  Let  the  remaining  1,000  half  whites 
mate  with  pure  negroes;  their  offspring  would  be 
one-quarter  white,  with  a brain  weight  of  1,319 
grammes.  We  would  then  have  another  so-called 
“ race  of  men,”  making  in  all  three  new  so-called 
“ races  of  men,”  as  widely  different  in  their  physical 
as  in  their  mental  qualities.  If  each  of  these  three 
classes  of  creatures  w'ere  placed  upon  an  island  in 
the  ocean,  and  thus  separated  from  each  other  and 
isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  the  marriage 
relations  of  each  confined  to  their  own  class,  they 
would  ultimately  settle  down  to  some  fixed  type.  It 
is  easy  to  see  that  the  number  of  these  so-called 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


465 


“ races  of  men  ” conlcl  be  increased  to  any  desired 
extent  by  mating  these  three  classes  of  mixed-bloods 
with  pure  whites,  with  pure  negroes,  and  with  mixed- 
bloods  of  different  grades;  the  progeny  of  each 
cross  would  present  a new  “race  of  men”  in  the 
eyes  of  the  atheist. 

Hunt’s  estimates  show  there  is  a differrence  of 
93  grammes,  between  the  brain  weight  of  the  white 
soldier  and  the  negro;  while  there  is  a difference  of 
110  grammes,  between  the  brain  weight  of  the  three- 
quarter  white  and  the  one-sixteenth  white.  Thus, 
the  difference  in  brain  weight  between  the  extremes 
of  mixed-bloods  is  greater  than  that  between  the 
whites  and  the  negroes.  Hence,  at  this  stage,  we 
might  confine  ourselves  to  the  mixed-bloods  in  our 
efforts  to  produce  new  “races  of  men”  by  crossing, 
and  still  have  a wider  range  than  we  had  with  the 
whites  and  negroes  with  which  we  began.  However, 
we  might  largely  increase  this  range  by  mating  the 
progeny  of  three-quarter  whites  with  whites,  and  by 
mating  the  progeny  of  the  one-sixteenth  white  with 
negroes.  In  the  offspring  of  the  former,  the  in- 
crease of  brain  weight  would  correspond  with  the 
increase  of  white  blood;  in  the  offspring  of  the  latter 
the  decrease  of  brain  weight  would  correspond  with 
the  increase  of  negro  blood.  These  differences  in 
their  mental  qualities,  would  be  accompanied  with 
corresponding  differences  in  their  physical  qualities. 
The  rapid  reduction  in  brain  weight  which  each  in- 
fusion of  negro  blood,  as  shown  by  Hunt’s  estimates, 
demonstrates  that,  if  the  progeny  of  the  one-six- 
teenth white  were  mated  continually  with  pure  ne- 


466 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


groes  for  centuries,  they  would  ultimately  fall  as  low 
in  point  of  brain  weight  as  the  diminutive  Hindoos, 
who  are  quoted  by  Huxley  at  27  ounces. 

Thus  it  is  shown:  (1)  That  all  of  Jhe  so-called 
brown,  red,  and  yellow  “ races  ” to  be  found  on  the 
different  continents  can  be  produced  by  amalgama- 
tion between  whites  and  negroes;  and  this  is  the 
only  process  by  which  they  can  be  produced.  This 
explanation  of  their  origin  is  sustained  by  the  scrip- 
tures and  the  sciences;  arrayed  against  i is  the  un- 
demonstrated  and  undemonstrable  theory  of  the 
atheist  that  these  degraded  creatures  developed  from 
the  ape.  (2)  That  these  so-called  brown,  red,  and 
yellow  “ races,”  which  apparently  span  the  gulf 
between  the  whites  and  the  negro,  and  which  shade 
up  from  almost  pure  black  to  almost  pure  white, 
thus  giving  the  Theory  of  Descent  the  little  plausi- 
bility it  enjoys,  are  really  the  result  of  amalgamation 
between  whites  and  negroes.  (3)  That  if  all  these 
mixed -bloods  were  destroyed,  and  only  the  white 
and  the  negro  remained,  no  advocate  of  the  Bible, 
however  partial  he  might  be  to  the  negro,  would 
consent  to  believe  that  the  white  and  the  negro  are 
the  progeny  of  one  primitive  pair;  neither  would 
the  most  avowed  opponent  of  the  Bible  consent  to 
believe  that  there  could  possibly  be  such  a thing  as 
a “human  species”  composed  of  only  two  “races  of 
men,”  the  one  white  and  the  other  black,  and  in 
absolute  contrast  to  each  other  in  their  physical  and 
mental  organisms  and  in  their  modes  of  life,  aspir- 
ations, customs,  habits,  manners,  gestures,  etc. 

We  have  now  shown:  (1)  That  after  the  deluge 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


467 


Noah  and  his  family,  with  their  negroes  and  other 
domestic  animals,  domestic  plants,  metallic  imple- 
ments and  all  the  appliances  of  civilized  life,  settled 
upon  one  of  the  continents  and  developed  a great 
civilization  which  finally  spread  to  other  continents. 
“ By  them  was  the  whole  earth  overspread.”  They 
were  one  people  and  spoke  one  language.  “ Behold 
the  people  is  one  and  they  have  all  one  language.” 
(Gen.  xi,  6).  The  whole  earth  was  of  one  language 
and  one  speech.  (2)  That  Noah  and  his  family 
were  white.  (3)  That  their  white  descendants  have 
disappeared  from  three  of  the  five  continents,  leav- 
ing a mere  remnant  in  parts  of  Europe  and  America. 
(4)  That  their  negroes  have  disappeared  from  four 
of  the  five  continents,  the  remnant  of  them  being 
confined  to  a few  tribes  in  Africa.  (5)  That  the 
greater  part  of  their  once  splendid  civilizations  are 
now  in  ruins.  (6)  That  now  the  great  bulk  of 
their  descendants  on  the  various  continents  are 
brown,  red,  and  yellow  barbarians  and  savages, 
which,  in  the  sum  of  their  characters,  are  identical 
with  the  known  offspring  of  whites  and  negroes  in 
our  midst. 

These  facts  indicate  that,  after  living  obediently 
to  the  laws  of  God  for  a long  period  after  the  deluge, 
the  descendants  of  Noah  forgot  God,  and  their  obli- 
gations to  Him,  and  violated  His  law  by  descending 
to  amalgamation  with  their  negroes;  then  the  smiles 
of  heaven  in  which  they  had  prospered  were  with- 
drawn, and  the  curses  of  God  were  visited  upon 
them  in  the  form  of  war,  famines,  pestilence,  etc.,  to 
compel  them  to  abandon  their  wicked,  destructive 


468 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


course.  But  they  persisted  in  it  with  the  results 
above  shown.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  value  of 
these  great  truths,  we  must  disabuse  our  minds  of 
the  false  teachings  of  atheism  with  reference  to 
man’s  development;  we  must  accept  the  teachings 
of  the  Bible  that  man  was  created  man;  that  he  was 
created  “a  little  lower  than  the  angels;”  that  he  has 
not  developed,  but  retrograded. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


Amalgamation  the  Parent  of  Atheism  and 
Idolatry.— The  Mission  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  course  of  the  modern  amalgamationist,  and 
the  origin  and  spread  of  amalgamation  in  modern 
times,  throws  a flood  of  light  on  the  ancient  amalga- 
mationist, and  the  spread  of  amalgamation  in  ancient 
times.  When  amalgamation  began  in  this  country, 
the  man  who  was  so  degraded  as  to  take  a negress 
to  wife  was  looked  upon  with  scorn  and  contempt, 
and  was  ostracised  from  the  society  of  decent  peo- 
ple; and  this  is  the  case  in  some  sections  to-day. 
Many  of  the  States  of  this  government  enacted  laws 
against  amalgamation.  But  at  the  same  time  trans^ 
ientT  amours  were  tolerated;  this  resulted  in  the 
utter  destruction  of  our  genuine  negroes,  and  the 
production  of  an  immense  mixed-blooded  popula- 
tion that  will  yet  absorb  the  whites  if  they  are  al- 
lowed to  remain  here. 

When  viewed  in  the  light  of  these  modern 
events,  it  is  plain  that  the  first  amalgamationists 
were  severely  denounced  and  punished  by  their 
neighbors  who  were  aware  that  amalgamation  was 
the  most  infamous  crime  known  to  the  law  of  God, 
and  that  its  indulgence  had  led  to  the  destruction  of 
the  antediluvians.  Under  these  circumstances  it 
would  seem  only  natural  that  those  ancient  amalga- 

469 


470 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EVE. 


mationists,  who  were  determined  to  pursue  their 
sinful  course,  should  desire  that  some  semblance  of 
respectability  be  given  their  acts;  the  only  way  pos- 
sible to  do  this  was  by  devising  some  iniquitous 
scheme  by  which  the  negro  and  the  mixed-bloods 
would  be  received  into  the  family  of  man;  for  at 
that  remote  period,  and  for  long  afterwards,  the 
negro  was  known  to  be  a beast — the  beast  of  the  field. 
Doubtless  the  God-fearing  people  of  that  age  did 
their  utmost  to  stamp  out  amalgamation;  but  de- 
spite their  efforts  it  spread  until  in  many  sections  of 
the  earth  the  pure  whites  and  pure  negroes  were  de- 
stroyed and  their  country  populated  with  mixed- 
bloods;  general  demoralization,  and  the  increase  of 
every  form  of  crime,  kept  pace  with  the  rapid  growth 
of  amalgamation;  this  demoralizing  condition  of  af- 
fairs gave  the  amalgamationist  his  opportunity;  and 
he  availed  himself  of  it  by  renouncing  God,  and  re- 
pudiating the  doctrine  of  Creation,  and  devised  the 
theory  of  development.  Taking  advantage  of  the 
existence  of  the  various  tribes  and  nations  of  mixed- 
bloods,  he  combined  them  with  the  whites  and  ne- 
groes as  different  “races”  of  the  “species — man.” 
By  this  means  the  negro  and  the  mixed-bloods  were 
thrust  into  the  family  of  man,  where  they  have  since 
remained,  in  contempt  of  God’s  plan  of  Creation, 
and  in  wanton  violation  of  His  law.  Thus  amalga- 
mation became  the  parent  of  atheism , with  its  theory 
of  development.  This  theory  gradually  broadened 
out,  and  finally  crystalized  into  the  general  theory 
of  development,  which  attributes  the  whole  phe- 
nomena of  the  universe  to  natural  causes. 


THE  TEMPTEE  OF  EVE, 


471 


The  literature  of  these  ancient  peoples,  like 
their  civilizations,  has  long  since  crumbled  into 
dust.  Hence,  it  is  impossible  for  us  at  this  late  day 
to  ascertain  the  exact  date  upon  which  this  crime 
was  committed.  However,  we  have  reliable  data 
which  proves  that  it  occurred  between  the  Deluge 
and  the  birth  of  Abraham.  The  theory  of  develop- 
ment doubtless  existed  together  with  idolatry  among 
the  antediluvians;  if  so,  the  evolutionist,  the  idola- 
ter, with  the  amalgamationist  and  mixed  bloods, 
were  destroyed  by  the  Deluge.  The  fragment  of 
Plato’s  history  of  Atlantis  contains  the  first  mention 
of  the  “races  of  men”  to  be  found  in  profane  history. 
Plato  lived  300  years  B.  C.;  he  was  the  descendant 
of  Solon,  the  great  law-giver  of  Athens.  Solon  spent 
ten  years  in  Egypt,  where  he  first  heard  of  Atlantis 
and  the  records  concerning  it  to  be  found  in  the 
sacred  registers  of  Egypt.  He  was  granted  permis- 
sion to  examine  them,  and  obtained  the  data  from 
which  to  write  a history  of  Atlantis.  But  Solon  died 
before  completing  his  work.  His  data  seems  to  have 
fallen  into  the  hands  of  Plato,  who  began  to  write  a 
history  of  Atlantis;  but  after  writing  a description 
of  the  continent,  its  population,  products,  wealth, 
religion,  culture,  power,  etc.,  Plato  died,  leaving  a 
mere  fragment  of  history,  which,  if  finished,  would 
have  been  an  invaluable  contribution  to  the  litera- 
ture of  the  world.  The  sacred  registers  of  Egypt 
were  so  much  more  ancient  than  the  historical  rec- 
ords of  the  Greeks,  that  an  Egyptian  priest  said  to 
Solon:  “You  have  no  antiquity  of  history,  and  no 
history  of  antiquity.”  These  terms  of  the  atheist 


472 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


could  only  have  originated  in  the  atheistic  school  of 
development;  they  are  always  employed  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  theory  of  man’s  descent  from  the  ape. 
However,  their  presence  in  the  sacred  registers  of 
ancient  Egypt  indicates  that  the  theory  of  develop- 
ment was  universally  taught  in  that  remote  period, 
in  perhaps  as  systematized  and  elaborated  a form  as 
it  is  in  our  day;  and  it  is  possible  that  it  had  existed 
among  the  ancients  from  a period  so  remote  that  it 
is  doubtful  whether  the  Egyptians  of  Solon’s  day 
were  aware  of  the  time  or  place  of  its  origin. 

The  continued  existence  of  this  degrading,  de- 
structive theory  was  insured  by  man’s  criminal  lust, 
to  which  it  owed  its  origin;  it  was  universally  taught 
in  the  ages  preceding  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  forms 
the  basis  of  the  theory  of  development,  as  shown  by 
the  statement  of  Prof.  Haeckel,  who  says:  “ We  will 
here  mention  only  that  as  early  as  the  seventh  cen- 
tury before  Christ,  the  representatives  of  the  Ionian 
philosophy  of  nature,  Thales,  Anaximenes,  and  An- 
aximander, of  Miletus,  and  more  especially  Anaxi- 
mander, established  important  principles  of  our  mod- 
ern monism.  Their  teaching  pointed  to  a uniform 
law  of  nature  as  the  basis  of  the  various  phenomena, 
a unity  of  all  nature  and  a continual  change  of  forms. 
Anaximander  considered  that  the  animalcules  in 
water  came  into  existence  through  the  influence  of 
the  warmth  of  the  sun,  and  assumed  that  man  had 
developed  out  of  fish-like  ancestors.  At  a later  date 
also  we  find  in  the  natural  philosophy  of  Heraclitus, 
and  Empidocles,  as  well  as  in  the  writings  of  Dem- 
ocritus and  Aristotle,  many  allusions  to  conceptions 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


473 


which  we  regard  as  the  fundamental  supports  of  our 
modern  theory  of  development.  Empedocles  points 
out  that  things  which  appear  to  have  been  made  for 
a definite  purpose  may  have  arisen  out  of  no  pur- 
pose whatever.  Aristotle  assumes  spontaneous  gen- 
eration as  the  natural  manner  in  which  the  lower 
organisms  came  into  existence.”  ( History  of  Crea- 
tion, Vol.  I,  pp.  78,  79). 

Thus,  we  find  that  in  remote  ages  it  was  taught 
that  man  is  merely  a species  of  animal  which  is  com- 
posed of  races  of  men  who  trace  their  descent 
through  the  lower  organisms  to  “ fish-like  ancestors,” 
themselves  the  result  of  spontaneous  generation. 
Thus,  the  theory  of  these  ancient  atheists,  like  that 
of  the  modern  atheists,  taught  that  from  man’s  “ fish- 
like ancestors  ” on  up  to,  and  including  man,  there 
is  just  one  flesh  in  different  stages  of  development. 
Hence,  according  to  this  theory,  all  flesh  is  akin. 
This  theory  proposed  to  degrade  man  to  the  level  of 
the  brute,  by  establishing  a blood  relationship  be- 
tween man  and  the  animals.  It  was  this  theory 
that  practically  swept  monotheism  from  the  earth 
prior  to  the  birth  of  Abraham.  It  was  to  counter- 
act the  degrading  influences  of  this  theory  that 
God  raised  up  the  nation  of  Israel;  and  when 
the  Israelites  became  the  victims  of  this  theory, 
as  they  often  did,  God  sent  prophet  after  prophet 
to  induce  them  to  renounce  this  pernicious  the- 
ory which  degrades  man  to  the  level  of  the  ne- 
gro and  the  mixed-bloods.  But,  disregarding  every 
influence  that  was  brought  to  bear,  they  adhered 
to  this  theory  and  the  demoralizing  influences 


474 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


which  it  exerts,  until  every  circle  of  society  was 
permeated  and  corrupted  by  it.  Then  God  sent 
His  son,  Jesus  Christ,  but,  like  many  of  the  prophets 
who  preceded  Him  on  this  mission,  He  lost  His  life 
in  the  vain  effort  to  eradicate  from  the  minds  of  men 
this  demoralizing  theory,  and  counteract  its  degrad- 
ing influences.  In  Paul’s  day  the  theory  of  devel- 
opment threatened  to  sweep  the  church  from  the 
narrative  of  creation  upon  which  the  Saviour  estab- 
lished it,  and  land  it  a wreck  on  the  quicksands  of 
atheism  and  negroism  where  we  find  it  to-day.  It 
was  in  his  fierce  struggle  with  this  theory  and  its 
false  teachings  that  Paul  exclaimed:  “All  flesh  is 

not  the  same  flesh;  but  there  is  one  kind  of  flesh  of 
man,  another  flesh  of  beasts,  another  of  fishes,  and 
another  of  birds.”  But  despite  every  effort  to  eradi- 
cate it,  this  destructive  theory  has  survived  to  our 
day,  and  is  now  universally  taught  and  accepted  by 
professed  Christians;  and  as  a result,  the  negro  and 
the  mixed-bloods  are  now  recognized  as  lower  races 
of  men  who  must  be  developed  and  christianized. 
This  is  a plain  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  The  ne- 
gro, being  an  ape,  was  not  involved  in  the  fall  of 
man.  Hence,  he  is  not  included  in  the  plan  which 
God  devised  for  man’s  redemption.  The  mixed- 
bloods  were  not  in  existence  at  the  time  of  Adam’s 
transgression;  they  are  simply  the  ultimate  result  of 
his  violation  of  God’s  law  in  descending  to  social 
equality  with  the  negro  in  Eden. 

Prior  to  the  creation  of  man,  the  negro  had  no 
more  idea  of  God  or  of  Divine  worship  than  a go- 
rilla. But  the  link  of  kinship  which  God  estab- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


475 


lished  between  Himself  and  man,  forms  a bond  of 
love  and  sympathy  between  them  which  makes  it 
possible  for  man  to  recognize  the  existence  of,  re- 
spect, and  worship,  an  all-wise,  all-powerful,  but  in- 
visible God.  But  no  kinship,  and  no  bond  of  love 
and  sympathy  exists  between  God  and  the  mixed- 
bloods.  Hence,  though  these  creatures  inherit  from 
their  white  ancestors  a belief  in  God  and  a pure 
form  of  religious  worship,  they  can  not  long  retain 
it  when  left  to  themselves;  when  relieved  of  the  in- 
fluence of  the  white,  they  soon  lose  all  confidence 
in  an  invisible  God;  they  want  a God  that  they  can 
see;  and  in  the  absence  of  such  an  one  they  make 
for  themselves  Gods  of  stone,  wood,  or  metal,  or  de- 
ify some  animate  or  some  inanimate  object  as  the 
case  may  be.  Hayti  illustrates  the  truth  of  this. 
The  “ black  republic”  of  Hayti  was  formally  ac- 
knowledged by  England  in  1825.  That  rich,  pro- 
ductive island  was  turned  over  to  the  negroes  and 
mixed-bloods:  they  were  provided  with  organized 
political  and  religious  systems,  with  schools, 
churches,  and  all  the  appliances  of  civilization;  yet 
in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  both  Catholics  and  Protes- 
tants, they  have  descended  to  fetish  worship.  They 
not  only  sacrificed  their  own  offsping  to  snakes,  but 
they  eat  the  sacrifice;  their  disgusting  ceremonies 
end  in  a drunken  debauch  which  is  characterized 
by  the  most  indiscriminate  intercourse  between 
the  sexes.  (Sir  Spencer  St.  John,  Hayti  or  The 
Black  Republic).  This  enables  us  to  realize  that  the 
offspring  of  whites  and  negroes  ultimately  descend 
to  idolatry;  though  there  are  many  tribes  of  mixed- 


476 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


bloods  who  have  lost  all  knowledge  of  a God,  and 
have  no  form  of  religious  worship.  Thus,  strange  as 
it  may  seem,  amalgamation  is  not  only  the  parent  of 
atheism,  which  denies  the  existence  of  God,  but  is 
also  the  parent  of  idolatry  with  its  worship  of  many 
gods. 

This  reveals  the  startling  truth  that  the  idolatry 
for  which  God  punished  Israel  and  her  neighboring 
nations,  had  its  origin  in  amalgamation.  When  the 
whites  of  a nation  are  absorbed  by  amalgamation, 
their  mixed-blooded  descendants  ultimately  descend 
to  idolary;  this  idolatry  spreads  to  the  mixed-bloods 
of  neighboring  nations,  and  may  even  spread  among 
the  whites  of  those  nations,  as  shown  in  the  case  of 
Solomon.  Solomon  took  wives  of  the  mixed-blooded 
females  of  the  Egyptians,  Ammonites,  Moabites, 
Edomites,  Zidonians,  and  Hittites.  These  were  na- 
tions with  which  God  forbade  Israel  to  inter-marry; 
and  Solomon’s  mixed-blooded  wives  led  him  into 
idolatry.  (See  I Kings , xi) . Ahab  did  the  same. 
(See  I Kings,  xvi) . When  idolatry  first  enters  a 
nation  it  appeals  to  the  depraved  nature  of  the 
mixed-bloods.  The  men  have  no  confidence  in  the 
idol;  but  the  obscene  rites,  and  the  indiscriminate 
intercourse  between  the  sexes  which  usually  char- 
acterizes the  worship  of  idols,  appeals  to  their  lusts, 
and  in  order  to  gratify  these  unrestrained  they  re- 
nounce God,  abandon  His  worship,  and  embrace 
idolatry.  Their  descendants  are  raised  in  the  midst 
of  amalgamation  and  idolatry;  and  in  the  course  of 
time  they  lose  all  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  and 
become  heathen.  Hence,  the  heathen  are  not  ne- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


477 


groes;  neither  are  they  mixed-bloods.  The  heathen 
are  pure-blooded  descendants  of  Adam,  who  have 
lost  their  knowledge  of  God  through  their  ancestors’ 
descent  to  amalgamation  and  idolatry;  and  it  was  to 
these  that  God  sent  the  prophets,  the  Saviour,  and 
His  disciples  to  reclaim. 

When,  after  the  deluge,  amalgamation  began 
among  the  descendants  of  Noah,  it  continued  to 
spread,  destroying  the  whites  and  negroes  in  nation 
after  nation,  and  populating  them  with  mixed-bloods 
until,  in  the  course  of  time,  the  earth  was  in  much 
the  same  condition  that  it  was  prior  to  the  deluge; 
as  amalgamation  increased,  the  mixed-bloods  in- 
creased at  the  expense  of  the  pure  whites  and  the 
pure  negroes;  and  atheism  and  idolatry,  the  twin 
crimes  which  owe  their  birth  to  amalgamation,  in- 
creased at  the  expense  of  monotheism.  This  strug- 
gle for  supremacy  between  monotheism  on  the  one 
side  and  atheism  and  idolatry  on  the  other,  finally 
culminated  in  war.  In  our  next  book  of  this  series 
we  shall  show  that  in  these  great  religious  wars, 
which  lasted  for  centuries,  and  in  which  every  con- 
tinent was  involved,  the  earth  was  drenched  in 
blood.  In  this  long,  unequal  struggle  monotheism 
was  practically  swept  from  the  globe,  and  the  sacred 
writings,  which  had  been  handed  down  from  Adam 
through  Noah  and  his  family,  were  all  destroyed. 
When  this  sad  event  occurred  God’s  plan  of  Creation 
as  revealed  to  Adam  survived  only  in  tradition,  and 
these  traditions  in  their  oral  transit  through  the  cen- 
turies became  so  corrupted  with  errors  and  super- 
stitions as  to  be  practically  worthless;  these  old  cor- 


478 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


rupted  traditions  linger  now  in  the  cosmogonies  of 
the  Chinese,  Hindoos,  Babylonians,  Egyptians,  etc. 

The  God-believing,  God-loving  people,  widely 
scattered  among  the  remnant  of  pure  whites,  be- 
came more  and  more  powerless  to  withstand  the 
overwhelming  tide  of  atheism,  negroism  and  idola- 
try that  had  practically  swept  monotheism  from  the 
globe;  and  the  destruction  of  both  man  and  the 
negro,  and  the  consequent  destruction  of  God’s  plan 
of  creation,  was  as  seriously  threatened  as  before  the 
deluge.  In  this  grave  emergency  God  conceived 
the  design  of  raising  up  for  Himself  a great  nation — 
a chosen  people — a people  whom  He  desired  should 
be  peculiar,  in  that  they  would  never  descend  to 
amalgamation,  atheism,  and  idolatry.  In  the  execu- 
tion of  this  design  God  selected  Abraham,  of  Uz,  in 
Chaldea,  and  said  unto  him:  “Get  thee  out  of  thy 

country,  and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy  fath- 
er’s house,  unto  a land  that  I will  show  thee.  And 
I will  make  thee  a great  nation,  and  I will  bless  thee, 
and  make  thy  name  great;  and  thou  shalt  be  a bless- 
ing. And  I will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and 
curse  them  that  curse  thee;  and  in  thee  shall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed.”  (Gen.  xii.  1,  2,  3). 

God  directed  Abraham  to  the  land  of  Canaan, 
and  said  unto  him,  “ Lift  up  now  thine  eyes  * * 
For  all  the  land  which  thou  seest,  to  thee  will  I 
give  it  and  thy  seed  forever.”  (Gen.  xiii,  14,  15). 

The  Canaanites  had  descended  to  amalgamation 
with  their  negroes;  though  there  were  more  or  less 
of  pure  whites  among  them,  and  some  of  these  sur- 
vived to  a late  period  in  Israelitish  history.  This  is 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


479 


shown  in  the  case  of  Uriah,  the  Hittite,  whom  David 
had  killed  that  he  might  possess  himself  of  Uriah’s 
wife.  However,  the  mixed-bloods  had  become  so 
white  that  it  was  impossible  to  distinguish  them 
from  whites  in  many  cases.  Hence,  it  was  danger- 
ous to  inter-marry  with  them,  as  shown  by  the  fact 
that,  when  Abraham’s  son  Isaac  reached  maturity 
he  was  forbidden  to  take  a wife  from  among  the 
daughters  of  Canaan;  but  that  he  should  take  a wife 
from  among  Abraham’s  kindred.  (See  Gen.  xxiv,  3, 
4) . This  was  done,  and  Isaac  took  to  wife  Rebekah, 
who  bore  him  two  sons,  Esau  and  Jacob.  Esau  inter- 
married with  the  Canaanites;  and  Rebekah,  fearing 
that  Jacob  might  do  likewise,  said  to  Isaac,  " I am 
weary  of  my  life  because  of  the  daughters  of  Heth:  if 
Jacob  take  a wife  of  the  daughters  of  Heth,  such  as 
these  which  are  of  the  daughters  of  the  land,  what  good 
shall  my  life  do  me?”  {Gen.  xxvii,  46) . This  God- 
fearing, devoted  mother  realized  that  if  Jacob  took  a 
wife  from  among  the  mixed-blooded  females  of  Heth 
and  begat  a progeny  of  mixed-bloods,  her  life  would  be 
lived  in  vain.  And  Isaac,  startled  at  the  thought, 
“ called  Jacob  and  blessed  him  * * ‘ and  said 

unto  him,  Thou  shalt  not  take  a wife  from  among 
the  daughters  of  Canaan.  Arise,  go  to  Padan-aram 
to  the  house  of  Bethuel,  thy  mother’s  father;  and 
take  thee  a wife  from  thence  of  the  daughters  of  La- 
ban, thy  mother’s  brother.  And  God  Almighty  bless 
thee  * * and  multiply  thee,  that  thou  mayest  be 

a multitude  of  people;  and  give  thee  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  * * * and  to  thy  seed  with  thee,  that 

thou  mayest  inherit  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a 


480 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


stranger,  which  God  gave  unto  Abraham.’  ” (Gen. 
xxviii,  1,  2,  3,  4).  Jacob  took  to  wife  Leah  and  Ra- 
chel the  daughters  of  Laban.  Jacob  and  his  family, 
consisting  of  seventy  souls,  moved  into  the  land  of 
Egypt,  where  they  were  well  treated  for  a time,  but 
their  descendants  were  finally  enslaved  and  held  in 
bondage  for  about  400  years;  but  God  kept  His  prom- 
ise to  Abraham,  and  released  them  from  bondage, 
and  directed  them  to  the  land  of  Canaan.  He  gave 
them  an  organized  system  of  political  government, 
and  an  organized  system  of  religion ; and  in  order  to 
counteract  the  teachings  of  atheism  as  set  forth  in  the 
theory  of  evolution,  God  inspired  Moses  to  write  the 
Narrative  of  Creation,  and  the  early  historj^  of  the 
Adamic  family  as  set  forth  in  the  Pentateuch. 

God  forbade  the  Israelites  to  inter-marry  with  the 
Canaanites,  saying:  “ Neither  shall  thou  make  mar- 

riages with  them;  thy  daughter  thou  shalt  not  give 
unto  his  son,  nor  his  daughter  shalt  thou  take  unto 
thy  son.”  ( Deut . vii,  3) . “ But  of  the  cities  of  these 
people  which  the  Lord  thy  God  doth  give  thee  for 
an  inheritance,  thou  shalt  save  alive  nothing  that 
breatheth:  But  thou  shalt  utterly  destroy  them.” 

(Deut.  xx,  16,  17).  At  the  same  time  they  were  per- 
mitted to  inter-marry  with  nations  “ afar  off.”  (Deut. 
xx) . After  enumerating  and  forbidding  every  form 
of  lust  which  it  was  possible  for  the  Adamic  family 
to  indulge  among  themselves,  God  enacted  the  most 
stringent  law  against  their  amalgamation  with  the 
negro,  and  affixed  the  death  penalty  to  the  violation 
of  the  law,  as  follows:  “Neither  shaft  thou  lie  with 

any  beast  to  defile  thyself  therewith;  neither  shall 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


481 


any  woman  stand  before  a beast  to  lie  down  thereto; 
it  is  confusion.”  (Levt.  xviii,  23) . And  if  a man 
lie  with  a beast,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death: 
and  ye  shall  slay  the  beast.  And  if  a woman  ap- 
proach unto  any  beast,  and  lie  down  thereto,  thou 
shalt  kill  the  woman  and  the  beast;  they  shall 
surely  be  put  to  death;  their  blood  shall  be  upon 
them.”  (Levt.  xx,  15,  16).  Continuing,  God  said: 
“Defile  not  ye  yourselves  in  any  of  these  things; 
for  in  all  these  the  nations  are  defiled  which  I 
cast  out  before  you ; and  the  land  is  defiled;  there- 
fore I do  visit  the  iniquity  thereof  upon  it;  and  the 
land  itself  vomiteth  out  its  inhabitants.  Ye  shall 
therefore  keep  my  statutes  and  my  judgments, 
and  not  commit  any  of  these  abominations  * * * 

that  the  land  spue  not  you  out  also  when  ye  defile 
it,  as  it  spued  out  the  nations  that  were  before  you.” 
(Levt.  xviii,  24,  25,  26,  28) . God  thus  specifically 
charges  the  Canaanites  with  lying  with  beasts.  In 
this  we  have  the  most  positive  proof  that  there  is  a 
beast  with  which  a man  may  lie,  just  as  he  would 
with  a woman,  or,  to  which  a woman  might  “lie 
down  thereto,”  just  as  she  would  to  a man. 

Corrupt  and  defile  are  synonymous  terms,  and 
investigation  of  this  subject  will  show  that  amalga- 
mation with  the  negro  is  the  only  crime  that  will  (1) 
corrupt  the  flesh;  (2)  that  will  corrupt  the  earth  it- 
self in  God’s  eye;  (3)  that  will  bring  upon  its  perpe- 
trators the  penalty  of  death,  under  the  law  of  God. 
Previous  to  the  deluge,  God  looked  upon  the  earth 
and  said:  “It  was  corrupt;  for  all  flesh  had  cor- 

rupted His  way  on  the  earth.”  This,  as  has  been 


482 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


shown,  could  only  have  resulted  from  amalgamation. 
Previous  to  the  entry  of  the  Israelites  into  Canaan, 
God  said  of  Canaan:  “The  land  is  defiled.”  He 

charges  the  Canaanites  with  lying  with  beast,  and 
this  corrupted  the  flesh  of  Canaan  as  it  corrupted 
the  flesh  of  the  antediluvians;  and  in  each  case  God 
destroyed  the  corrupted  flesh,  and  the  amalgama- 
tionists  who  corrupted  it.  He  destroyed  the  ante- 
diluvians by  the  deluge,  and  the  Canaanites  by  a war 
of  extermination. 

The  immediate  offspring  of  man  and  the  negro 
— the  mulatto — is  the  result  of  man’s  violation  of 
that  Divine  law,  thou  shalt  not  lie  with  any  beast;  and 
under  the  penalty  which  God  attached  to  the  viola- 
tion of  this  law,  the  mulatto  was  doomed  to  instant 
death  in  the  moment  of  conception.  This  being 
true,  it  follows  that  neither  the  mulatto  nor  his  ulti- 
mate offspring  can  ever  acquire  the  right  to  live ; that 
they  have  no  rights,  social,  political,  or  religious; 
this  is  shown  by  God’s  destruction  of  the  antedilu- 
vians, and  His  command  to  Israel  to  destroy  the  Ca- 
naanites without  regard  to  age  or  sex,  and  “leave 
nothing  alive  that  breatheth,”  and  take  their  posses- 
sions. The  immediate  offspring  of  man  and  the  ne- 
gro is  merely  the  result  of  man’s  violation  of  Divine 
law,  and,  as  such,  is  not  a part  of  God’s  creation. 
Hence,  its  ultimate  offspring  could  never  become  so; 
it  was  corrupted  flesh  to  begin  with,  and  can  never 
become  pure  by  reverting  to  either  man  or  the  ne- 
gro. Neither  can  there  be  any  peace  between  God 
and  man  as  long  as  these  monstrosities  are  allowed 
to  defile  the  earth  with  their  presence. 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


483 


Gocl  made  Jerusalem  the  religious  center  of  the 
world;  the  pure-blooded  descendants  of  Adam, 
whatever  their  nationality,  were  entitled  to  mem- 
bership in  the  Jewish  church  by  complying  with 
its  laws.  God  desired  that  Israel  would  disseminate 
the  plan  of  Creation,  as  set  forth  in  the  Mosaic  Rec- 
ord, among  the  pure-blooded  descendants  of  Adam, 
and  counteract  the  degrading  influences  of  idolatry 
and  the  theories  of  atheism;  that  all  should  know 
that  man  had  not  descended  from  “fish-like  ances- 
tors,” themselves  the  result  of  “ spontaneous  genera- 
tion;” but  that  man  was  created  “the  son  of  God,” 
and  that  he  is  not  a highly  developed  species  of  ape 
which  is  composed  of  five  or  more  races  of  men  in 
different  stages  of  development;  but  that  he  is  a sep- 
arate creation,  wholly  distinct  from  the  animals. 

But  the  Israelites  seemed  to  have  no  apprecia- 
tion of  the  great  mission  which  they  were  brought 
into  existence  to  accomplish;  they  thought  only  of 
the  gratification  of  their  own  desires;  instead  of  re- 
sponding to  the  just  requirements  of  God  by  re- 
claiming their  fellowmen  from  the  errors  and  crimes 
into  which  they  had  fallen,  they  abandoned  them- 
selves to  the  indulgence  of  the  follies  and  crimes 
they  were  commanded  to  eradicate.  Once  settled 
in  their  new  homes  they  disregarded  the  laws  of 
God,  and  as  Josephus  says,  “were  full  of  the  evil 
doings  that  were  common  among  the  Canaanites.” 
They  not  only  descended  to  amalgamation  with  their 
negroes,  and  inter-married  with  the  mixed-blooded 
nations  they  were  commanded  to  destroy,  but  they 
even  renounced  God  and  embraced  idolatry.  The 


484 


THE  TEMPTEK  OF  EYE. 


history  of  the  Israelites  from  Sinai  to  the  crucifixion 
is  largely  a narrative  of  their  descent  to  idolatry  and 
fornication;  no  charge  made  against  them  is  more 
common  than  that  of  fornication.  They  went  in  the 
way  of  Cain.  A notable  instance  of  this  is  presented 
in  the  case  of  King  Solomon,  who  not  only  took 
wives  of  the  mixed-blooded  princesses  of  nations 
with  which  Israel  was  forbidden  to  inter-marry,  but 
he  had  negro  concubines,  as  shown  by  the  utter- 
ances of  one  of  them  as  follows: 

“Let  him  kiss  me  with  the  kisses  of  his  mouth; 
for  thy  love  is  better  than  wine.  Because  of  the 
savior  of  thy  good  ointments  thy  name  is  as  oint- 
ment poured  forth,  therefore  do  the  virgins  love 
thee.  Draw  me;  we  will  run  after  thee:  the  king 
hath  brought  me  unto  his  chambers:  we  will  be 
glad  and  rejoice  in  thee,  we  will  remember  thy  love 
more  than  wine.  * * * I am  black,  but  comely, 

O ye  daughters  of  Jerusalem,  as  the  tents  of  Kedar, 
as  the  curtains  of  Solomon.  Look  not  upon  me  be- 
cause I am  black,  because  the  sun  hath  looked  upon 
me:  * * * While  the  king  sitteth  at  his  table, 

my  spikenard  sendeth  forth  the  smell  thereof.  A 
bundle  of  myrrh  is  my  well  beloved  unto  me;  he 
shall  lie  all  night  between  my  breasts.  * * * 

Behold,  thou  art  fair,  my  beloved,  yea  pleasant:  also 
our  bed  is  green.”  {Cant,  i,  2,  3,  etc.).  The  dis- 
gusting spectacle  of  Solomon’s  black  concubine  ex- 
ulting over  the  “daughters  of  Jerusalem”  because 
of  the  favor  shown  her  by  the  king,  has  been  often 
repeated  in  our  day;  in  our  own  country  many  a 
black  concubine,  who  had  received  the  attentions  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


485 


some  demoralized  father,  husband,  son  or  brother, 
has  thus  exulted  over  his  injured  mother,  wife, 
daughter,  or  sister. 

In  this  age  of  atheism  and  infidelity  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  earth,  without  regard  to  their  physical 
and  mental  characters,  or  the  laws  of  God,  are  all  in- 
cluded under  the  term  “people.”  But  no  such  per- 
nicious course  was  pursued  by  the  inspired  authors; 
they  divided  them  into  three  classes:  (1)  “People.” 

(2)  “No  people,”  or  “those  which  are  not  a people.” 

(3)  “ The  mingled  people.” 

The  “people”  are  evidently  the  pure-blooded 
descendants  of  Adam;  this  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  the  Israelites,  whom  God  so  often  befriended, 
are  referred  to  as  “people.”  “Those  which  are  not 
a people,”  or  “no  people,”  were  certainly  animals — 
“beasts  of  the  field” — negroes.  God  warned  the 
Israelites  through  Moses  that  if  they  cultivated 
criminal  relations  with  them  that  He  would  use 
these  creatures  as  a weapon  against  them.  He  said, 
“ I will  move  them  to  jealousy  with  those  which  are 
not  a people.”  In  addition  to  this  He  says,  “I  will 
provoke  them  to  anger  with  a foolish  nation.”  ( Deut . 
xxxii,  21).  Many  centuries  after  this  event,  when 
the  Israelites  had  abandoned  themselves  to  the  most 
criminal  relations  with  these  creatures  “which  are 
not  a people,”  and  had  been  led  off  into  idolatry,  and 
were  suffering  the  vengeance  of  God  for  their  crimes, 
Paul  charged  them  with  not  being  ignorant  upon 
this  subject,  and  reminded  them  of  the  warning 
God  had  given  them  through  Moses;  Paul  said  to 
them:  “ Did  not  Israel  know?  First,  Moses  saith, 


486 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


I will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are  no 
people,  and  by  a foolish  nation  I will  anger  you.” 
{Rom.  x,  19) . These  creatures  “ which  are  not  a 
people”  were  not  of  the  flesh  of  men — they  were 
beasts — apes;  and  if  the  theologian  thinks  they  were 
not  negroes,  he  should  inform  us  as  to  what  animal 
the  inspired  writers  referred  to. 

The  “mingled  people”  were  evidently  mixed- 
bloods;  mixing  and  mingling  are  synonymous  terms; 
these  “mingled  people”  were  the  result  of  mingling 
man’s  blood  with  the  blood  of  beasts — beasts  of  the 
field — they  were  the  offspring  of  whites  and  negroes ; 
they  presented  the  physical  and  mental  characters 
of  man  blended  and  confused  with  those  of  the  ne- 
gro; they  were  neither  man  nor  negro,  but  were  the 
result  of  man’s  violation  of  God’s  law  against  confu- 
sion. (See  Levi,  xviii,  23).  They  were  a “mingled 
people.” 

Further  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  “mingled 
people”  were  mixed-bloods,  is  found  in  the  fact  that, 
like  the  antediluvians,  Canaanites,  etc.,  they  were 
destroyed  by  Divine  edict:  “The  Word  of  the  Lord 
came  again  unto  me,  saying,  Son  of  man,  prophesy 
and  say,  * * * the  day  is  near,  even  the  day  of 

the  Lord  is  near,  * * * and  the  sword  shall 

come  upon  Egypt,  and  great  pain  shall  be  in  Ethio- 
pia, * * * Ethiopia,  and  Libya,  and  Lydia,  and 

all  the  mingled  people,  and  Chub,  and  the  men  of 
the  land  that  is  in  the  league,  shall  fall  by  the 
sword.”  ( Ezek . xxx,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5;  see  also  Jer.  xxv) . 
Thus  we  find  that  the  Ethiopians  of  the  times  of 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EVE. 


487 


Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  were  a “mingled  people” — 
mixed-bloods. 

The  fact  that  the  Ethiopians  of  to-day,  in  Africa, 
are  blacks,  has  led  many  to  suppose  that  the  ancient 
Ethiopians  of  the  time  of  Moses  were  blacks — ne- 
groes. This  is  a sad  mistake.  However,  this  error 
has  been  seized  upon  by  modern  amalgamationists 
as  proof  of  God’s  approval  of  amalgamation  between 
whites  and  negroes;  in  support  of  their  pernicious 
theory,  its  advocates  point  to  the  fact  that  Moses 
married  an  Ethiopian  woman,  and  insist  that  she 
was  black;  the  fact  that  Miriam,  the  sister  of  Moses, 
was  punished  with  leprosy  for  complaining  against 
Moses  for  marrying  an  Ethiopian  woman,  is  seized 
upon  as  further  evidence  of  God’s  approval  of  amal- 
gamation. But  this  is  all  wrong;  nothing  could  be 
more  absurd,  and  nothing  more  blasphemous,  than 
to  suppose  that  God  would  select  a degraded  amal- 
gamationist,  with  a black  wife,  to  lead  the  Israelites 
to  Canaan.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Israel- 
ites were  forbidden  to  inter-marry  promiscuously 
with  other  nations,  for  amalgamation  was  common 
in  that  remote  period,  as  it  is  to-day;  realizing  this, 
Miriam  feared  that  the  Ethiopian  wife  of  Moses 
might  be  a mixed-blood,  and  she  expressed  her  dis- 
pleasure at  his  marriage.  But  this  was  a reflection 
on  God,  who  approved  of  the  marriage  of  Moses  to 
the  Ethiopian  woman,  and  Miriam  was  severely 
punished.  The  very  fact  that  God  approved  of  the 
marriage  of  Moses  to  this  Ethiopian  woman,  is  the 
most  positive  proof  that  she  was  of  pure  Adamic 
stock — that  she  was  white. 


488 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


In  addition  to  this,  modern  research  has  dem- 
onstrated beyond  all  doubt  that  the  original  Ethio- 
pians were  not  Africans,  but  Asiatics.  The  seat  of 
the  Ethiopian  Empire  was  situated  “in  the  province 
of  Omar,  in  southern  Asia.”  ( Preadamites , p.  17. 
Observe  the  long  list  of  high  and  recent  authorities 
cited  by  Prof.  Winchell  in  support  of  this) . The 
Ethiopians  developed  on  the  Arabian  peninsula,  in 
Asia,  one  of  the  finest  civilizations  of  ancient  times. 
This  is  further  evidence  that  they  were  not  blacks, 
but  whites,  for  scientific  research  has  shown  that 
“no  negro  civilization  has  ever  appeared;”  but  that 
the  white  is  the  great  building,  developing  power  of 
the  earth.  The  Ethiopians  were  one  of  the  most 
enlightened,  enterprising,  and  powerful  nations  of 
their  day.  They  developed  a commerce  which  ex- 
tended over  a considerable  portion  of  Asia  and 
Africa,  and  perhaps  Europe.  The  history  of  such  a 
people  must  have  been  an  important  one;  in  this,  we 
find  further  proof  that  they  were  not  negroes:  the 
most  careful  research  shows  that  “ no  woolly-haired 
nation  ever  had  an  important  history.”  The 
whites  have  always  been  the  commercial  power  of 
the  globe. 

Mr.  Bancroft  says:  “ The  Semites  early  peopled 
the  Arabian  peninsula  and  established  a state  in 
Ethiopia,  as  some  believe,  before  Egypt  had  attained 
its  full  development.  The  Ethiopians  established  a 
commerce  on  the  Red  Sea  with  the  eastern  coasts  of 
Africa  and  with  India,  and  contributed  greatly  to  the 
resources  of  ancient  Egypt.”  (Footprints  of  Time,  p. 
33).  Thus,  according  to  this  learned  historian,  and 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


489 


other  high  authorities,  the  Ethiopians  were  not  the 
sons  of  Ham,  but  were  the  descendants  of  Shem.  It 
should  prove  a trifle  embarrassing  to  the  advocates 
of  the  theory  that  the  original  Ethiopians  were  ne- 
groes, when  they  are  called  upon  to  explain  how  the 
Ethiopians,  who  were  one  branch  of  the  family  of 
Shem,  were  black,  while  the  Israelites,  another  branch 
of  the  family  of  Shem,  were  white. 

It  is  probable  that  more  or  less  amalgamation 
existed  among  the  Ethiopians  of  Moses’  day;  they 
were  originally  of  pure  white  stock,  and  that  more  or 
less  of  this  stock  remained  at  that  period  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  marriage  of  Moses  with  an  Ethi- 
opian woman  received  the  sanction  of  God.  Addi- 
tional proof  that  they  were  originally  pure  whites 
who  were  finally  absorbed  by  amalgamation  with 
their  negroes,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  nearly  nine 
hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Moses  we  find  them 
described  as  a ‘‘mingled  people”  and  included  in 
the  list  of  that  class  of  nations  who  were  destroyed 
by  Divine  edict.  We  should  bear  in  mind  that  at 
one  period  of  its  history  the  inhabitants  of  a nation 
may  consist  of  pure  whites  and  pure  negroes;  the 
whites  may  descend  to  amalgamation,  and  in  the 
course  of  centuries  both  the  pure  whites  and  the 
pure  negroes  will  be  absorbed,  and  their  descendants 
will  all  be  mixed-bloods.  This  was  the  case  with  the 
Ethiopians.  This  destructive  crime  destroyed  the 
great  nations  of  antiquity,  and  populated  the  greater 
part  of  every  continent  of  the  earth  with  mixed- 
bloods. 

All  the  facts  indicate  that  the  Ethiopians  sent 


490 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


out  a colony  from  their  empire  in  Asia  which  settled 
on  the  upper  Nile.  These  colonists  with  their  ne- 
groes developed  a fine  civilization,  but  finally  de- 
scended to  amalgamation,  and  both  whites  and  ne- 
groes were  absorbed,  and  their  civilization  was  laid 
in  ruins.  Their  mixed-blooded  descendants  are  now 
found  in  Nubia,  Sennaar,  Kardofan,  and  Abyssinia. 
“ The  population  of  this  vaguely  defined  region  is  a 
mixture  of  Arabian  and  Libyan  races  with  the  gen- 
uine Ethiopians.  The  latter  had  well-formed  limbs, 
and  a facial  outline  resembling  the  Caucasian  in  all 
but  its  inclination  to  prominent  lips  and  a somewhat 
sloping  forehead.  Their  language  was  Semitic.”  C. 
K.  Adams,  Universal  Encyclopedia , Art.,  Ethiopia). 

Thus,  we  find  in  these  modern  Ethiopians  of 
Africa  the  “ facial  outline  resembling  the  Caucasian,” 
blended  with  the  “prominent  lips”  and  “sloping 
forehead,”  which  is  a character  of  the  negro.  We 
might  add  that  his  complexion  is  another  character 
of  the  negro.  In  this  blending  of  the  characters  of 
whites  and  negroes,  in  the  modern  Ethiopians,  we 
find  the  most  positive  proof  of  their  being  mixed- 
bloods.  In  the  face  of  these  evidences  of  crossing, 
there  is  not  an  anthropologist  on  the  earth  who 
would  accept  the  theory  that  the  Ethiopian  of  to-day 
is  a genuine  negro.  The  very  fact  that  the  modern 
Ethiopians  of  Africa  are  mixed-bloods,  shows  that 
they  trace  their  descent  to  vrhites  and  negroes. 

The  original  Ethiopians  who  developed  the 
splendid  civilization  of  the  Arabian  peninsula,  de- 
scended to  amalgamation  with  their  negroes  and 
their  descendants  became  colored;  and  however  much 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


491 


they  might  desire  it,  they  could  never  revert  to  the 
complexion  of  their  white  ancestors.  It  was  doubt- 
less his  knowledge  of  this  that  led  Jeremiah  to  con- 
temptuously ask:  “Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his 

skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots?”  This  passage  has 
been  seized  upon  as  proof  that  the  Ethiopians  of 
that  period  were  black;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the 
text  to  warrant  such  construction.  They  might  have 
been  of  any  other  complexion ; besides  it  is  plain  that 
it  would  be  as  impossible  for  the  whites,  or  the  reds, 
or  the  yellows,  to  change  their  complexion,  as  it 
would  be  for  the  blacks  to  change  theirs.  _Amalga-___ 
gamation  alone  can  change  the  complexion  (“skin  ”) 
"^f^Tbribe^Farnation.  In  discussing  these  questions, 
we  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  disposition  of  the 
ancients  to  migrate  from  one  country  to  another  was 
much  the  same  as  it  is  with  the  moderns.  Ebed- 
melech,  the  Ethiopian,  who  befriended  Jeremiah, 
presents  a case  in  point.  (Jer.  xxxviii) . Ebed- 
melech  was  evidently  a white  whose  ancestors,  more 
or  less  remote,  migrated  from  Ethiopia  to  Judea, 
and  thus  escaped  amalgamation  and  the  destruction 
which  befel  their  kinsman  in  Ethiopia.  The  advocates 
of  the  theory  that  the  original  Ethiopians,  like  their 
mixed-blooded  descendants  were  blacks,  would  have 
us  believe  that  the  Queen  of  Sheba,  who  visited  Sol- 
omon, was  a negress;  but  this  is  a mere  assumption, 
and  is  not  supported  by  the  least  shadow  of  proof. 
For  aught  we  know,  she  was  a pure-blooded  white. 

In  discussing  Meroe,  Mr.  Charles  R.  Gillett 
says  it  was  “the  name  given  by  Cambyses  to  the 
Ethiopian  city  Saba,  in  honor  of  his  sister,  who  died 


492 


THE  TEMPTER  OE  EYE. 


there.  It  was  situated  on  the  Nile  between  the  fifth 
and  sixth  cataracts,  in  upper  Nubia.  * * * After 

the  decay  of  Napata,  * * * it  became  the  Ethio- 
pian capital.  * * * The  Greek  tradition  that  Me- 

roe  furnished  the  original  Egyptian  civilization  is 
wrong,  being  based,  probably,  on  limited  observation 
and  temporary  relations.  * * * The  pyramids  of 

the  region  were  of  late  construction,  dating  from  600 
to  100  B.  C.,  and  are  simply  formal  imitations  of 
those  of  Egypt.”  ( Universal  Encyclopedia,  Art.  Me- 
roe) . 

The  above  statement  fully  confirms  our  conten- 
tion that  the  original  Ethiopians  were  not  Africans, 
but  Asiatics;  that  they  were  not  blacks,  but  whites; 
and  that  at  some  period  intervening  between  the  time 
of  Moses  and  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  they  sent  a colony 
of  whites  with  their  negroes  into  Africa.  This  col- 
ony settled  on  the  Nile,  in  what  is  now  Nubia,  and 
developed  a splendid  civilization,  the  remains  of 
which  are  in  existence  to-day.  This  colony  of  white 
Ethiopians  survived  the  destruction  of  the  mother 
country,  which  occurred  in  the  da3Ts  of  Ezekiel, 
more  than  500  B.  C.  We  find  these  white  Ethiopi- 
ans in  Africa  developing  their  country,  building 
monuments,  etc.,  down  to  a period  100  B.  C.  Doubt- 
less a considerable  number  of  them  survived  until 
long  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  It  is  highly  probable 
that  more  or  less  of  them  embraced  Christianity;  the 
Ethiopian  eunuch  whom  Phillip  baptised  presents  a 
notable  example  of  this.  However,  they  finally  went 
“in  the  way  of  Cain,”  and  were  destroyed;  their 
civilization  was  laid  in  ruins,  and  their  mixed- 


THE  TEMPTEB  OF  EYE. 


493 


blooded  descendants  exist  to-day  in  Africa  in  various 
stages  of  barbarism  and  savagery. 

After  the  original  Ethiopians  were  destroyed  in 
Asia,  the  world  lost  all  knowledge  of  their  former 
existence,  and  the  African  Ethiopians  came  to  be 
regarded  as  the  only  Ethiopians.  But  it  is  plain 
that  if  we  accept  this  theory  the  Bible  with  its 
teaching  that  the  Ethiopians  were  destroyed  500 
years  before  Christ  is  disproved;  for  we  find  them 
(in  Africa)  building  monuments,  etc.,  100  B.  C.  But 
when  we  understand  that  there  was  a great  Ethi- 
opian empire  in  Asia  from  which  the  African  Ethi- 
opians were  a colony,  and  that  it  was  the  parent 
country  that  was  destroyed,  the  whole  subject  be- 
comes plain. 

Further  evidence  that  the  Israelites  violated 
the  laws  of  God  by  descending  to  amalgamation 
with  the  negro  and  mixed-bloods,  is  shown  by  the 
following:  “For  mine  eyes  are  upon  all  their  ways. 

* * * And  first  I will  recompense  their  iniquity 

and  their  sins  double;  because  they  have  defiled 
mine  inheritance  with  the  carcasses  of  their  detest- 
able and  abominable  things.”  (Jer.  xvi,  17,  18). 
Israel  was  God’s  “inheritance.”  (See  I Kings,  viii, 
51;  Isaiah,  xix,  25,  etc.).  Thus,  by  their  amalga- 
mation they  had  filled  Israel — the  nation  of  Israel — 
with  the  “ carcasses  ” of  “things” — mixed-bloods — 
that  were  “ detestable  and  abominable  ” in  the  eyes 
of  God;  and  by  so  doing  they  defiled  the  land  as  the 
Canaanites  did. 

Prior  to  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  the  Israelites  had 
persisted  in  amalgamation  for  so  long  a period  that 


494 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


their  mixed-blooded  progeny  were  not  distinguish- 
able from  pure  whites;  and  the  whole  nation  had 
become  so  demoralized  and  degraded  that  even  the 
women  of  Israel  were  marrying  mixed-bloods;  and 
as  a result  it  was  unsafe  for  a man  to  take  a wife 
from  among  them,  and  God  forbid  Jeremiah  to  do 
so,  saying:  “Thou  shalt  not  take  thee  a wife, 

neither  shalt  thou  have  sons  and  daughters  in  this 
place.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  concerning  the  sons 
and  concerning  the  daughters  that  are  born  in  this 
place,  and  concerning  their  mothers  that  bare  them, 
and  concerning  their  fathers  that  begat  them  in  this 
land:  They  shall  die  grievious  deaths;  they  shall  not 
be  lamented,  neither  shall  they  be  buried;  but  they 
shall  be  as  dung  upon  the  face  of  the  earth;  and 
they  shall  be  consumed  by  the  sword,  and  by  fam- 
ine; and  their  carcasses  shall  be  meat  for  the  fowl 
of  heaven,  and  for  the  beasts  of  the  earth.”  ( Jer . 
xvi,  2,  3) . Thus  it  is  a matter  of  scriptural  record 
that,  in  the  eyes  of  God,  the  mixed-bloods  are  only 
fit  for  dung  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Despite  every  effort  made  to  reclaim  them,  the 
Israelites  persisted  in  their  amalgamation,  atheism, 
and  idolatry,  and  thus  defiled  the  land  until,  as  God 
had  threatened,  it  spued  them  out  also,  as  it  spued 
out  the  nations  that  were  before  them.  In  the 
meantime  God  sent  prophet  after  prophet  to  induce 
them  to  abandon  their  wicked  course;  but  they  mal- 
treated and  often  killed  them;  and  as  a last  resort 
He  sent  His  son  Jesus  Christ,  and  they  maltreated 
and  killed  Him  also.  That  the  mission  of  the  Saviour 
was  identical  with  that  of  the  prophets  vdio  preceded 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


495 


Him  is  shown  by  His  parable:  “There  was  a certain 

Kouseholder,  which  planted  a vineyard,  and  hedged 
it  round  about,  and  digged  a winepress  in  it,  and 
built  a tower,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went 
into  a far  country:  And  when  the  time  of  the  fruit 

drew  near,  he  sent  his  servants  to  the  husbandmen, 
that  they  might  receive  the  fruit  of  it.  And  the  hus- 
bandmen took  his  servants,  and  beat  one,  and  killed 
another,  and  stoned  another.  Again  he  sent  other 
servants  more  than  the  first:  And  they  did  unto 

them  likewise.  But  last  of  all  he  sent  unto  them  his 
son,  saying,  They  will  reverence  my  son.  But  when 
the  husbandmen  saw  the  son,  they  said  among  them- 
selves, This  is  the  heir;  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and 
let  us  seize  on  his  inheritance.  And  they  cast  him 
out  of  the  vineyard,  and  slew  him.”  ( Mat . xxi,  33, 
34,  etc.) . 

In  this  parable  it  is  plain  that  God  is  repre- 
sented by  the  “ householder;”  the  earth  by  the  “ vine- 
yard;” souls  by  the  “fruit;”  the  prophets  by  the 
“ servants;  ” and  Jesus  Christ  by  “the  son  and  heir.” 
We  are  thus  taught  (1)  That  the  earth  is  God’s 
“vineyard.”  (2)  That  the  fruit  He  desires  of  it  are 
souls.  (3)  That  man  is  the  husbandman  to  whom 
He  let  it  out,  and  whom  He  desired  to  produce  souls 
which,  by  a life  of  obedience  to  God,  would  be  fitted 
for  the  realms  of  the  blest  in  eternity,  and  thus  in- 
crease the  population  of  heaven.  But  amalgamation 
produces  no  souls.  Hence,  the  apostle  Jude  com- 
pares the  mixed-bloods  to  clouds  without  water , and 
trees  without  fruit,  that  is  bodies  without  souls.  Refer- 
ring to  the  mixed-bloods  as  participants  in  Divine 


496 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


worship,  Jude  says:  “ These  are  spots  in  your  feasts 

of  charity,  when  they  feast  with  you,  feeding  them- 
selves without  fear.”  Jude  also  displays  an  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  disposition  of  the  mixed-bloods  to 
boast  their  white  blood  regardless  of  whether  they 
are  born  in  or  out  of  wedlock,  when  he  compares 
them  to  “ raging  waves  of  the  sea,  foaming  out  their 
own  shame.”  (See  Jude,  verses  12,  13).  (4)  The 

Saviour’s  parable  teaches  that  each  succeeding 
prophet  came  on  the  same  mission  as  did  the  first 
one;  and  that  the  “ son  and  heir,”  Jesus -Christ,  came 
on  the  same  mission  as  the  prophets  who  preceded 
Him;  and  a moment’s  reflection  should  convince 
us  that  if  the  first  “servant”  or  prophet  had  suc- 
ceeded in  his  mission,  the  second  one  would  not 
have  been  sent;  and  if  any  subsequent  one  had 
succeeded,  the  “son  and  heir”  would  not  have 
been  sent.  Hence,  the  coming  of  the  Saviour  to 
reclaim  man  was  a last  resort;  but  He  failed  in  His 
mission,  as  did  the  prophets  who  preceded  Him; 
and  atheism  is  as  universally  taught  to-day,  and 
amalgamation  as  universally  indulged,  as  they  were 
prior  to  the  birth  of  Christ. 

In  His  efforts  to  redeem  the  whole  Adamic 
family,  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  the  Saviour  issued  His 
great  decree:  “ Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 

the  gospel  to  every  creature.”  {Mark,  xvi,  15) . 
No  decree  was  ever  more  misunderstood  than  this, 
and  none  more  abused.  In  the  very  nature  of 
things,  the  execution  of  thisdecreajwas  confined  to 
the  pure-blooded  -descendants  of  Adam,  who  alone 
are  involved  in  Adam’s  transgression;  if  proof  of 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


497 


this  is  required,  the  Saviour  furnishes  it  in  the  fol- 
lowing decree:  “ Give, jgot  that  which  is  holy  unto 

the  dogs,  neither  cast  ye  your  pearls  before  swine, 
lest  they  trample  them  under  their  feet  and  turn 
again  and  rend  you.”  (Mat.  vii,  6) . This  prohibi- 
tory statute  proves  the  existence  of  an  animal  upon 
which  we,  in  our  ignorance  of  God’s  plan  of  creation, 
might  be  misled  into  attempting  to  christianize 
under  the  impression  that  he  is  a man;  and  this  is 
shown  to  be  true  when  we  turn  upon  this  decree 
the  light  of  Paul’s  teaching  that,  “ there  is  one  kind 
of  flesh  of  men,  another  flesh  of  beasts,”  etc.  We 
find  that  the  swine,  the  dog,  and  the  negro,  all  be- 
long to  the  flesh  of  beasts.  The  scriptures  are  pro- 
nounced “ holy.”  (Rom.  i,  2) . While  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  likened  to  “ goodly  pearls.”  (Mat.  xiii,  45, 
46).  Thus  we  are  justified  in  deciding,  that  “that 
which  is  holy,”  and  which  God  forbids  man  to  give 
unto  the  dogs,  is  the  Bible;  and  that  the  “pearls” 
which  God  forbids  man  to  cast  before  swine,  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Thus  is  becomes  plain  that 
this  statute  was  intended  to  confine  the  Bible  and 
Divine  worship  to  man,  and  that  it  excludes  the 
negro  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  animals.  This 
being  true,  it  follows  that  it  is  as  criminal  to  confer 
the  Bible  on  the  negro,  as  to  confer  it  on  the  dog; 
and  that  it  is  as  criminal  to  attempt  to  christianize 
the  negro,  as  the  swine.  Man  can  make  no  distinc- 
tion between  one  animal  and  another  in  these  re- 
spects. This  prohibitory  statute  embraces  the 
mixed-bloods. 

Further  evidence  that  the  negro  and  the  mixed- 


498 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


bloods  are  not  included  in  the  Plan  of  Salvation,  is 
found  in  the  statement  of  Paul,  who  says  that  in  his 
day,  the  gospel  “was  preached  to  every  creature 
under  heaven.”  (Col.  i,  23).  That  is,  it  reached 
“ every  creature  ” for  whom  it  was  designed.  Yet 
neither  the  Saviour  nor  His  disciples  preached  the 
gospel  to  the  negroes  and  mixed-bloods  throughout 
Africa;  nor  to  the  Hindoos,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc., 
of  Asia;  nor  to  the  Malays,  Australians,  etc.,  of 
Oceanica;  nor  to  the  Indians  of  North  and  South 
America;  nor  to  the  Basques,  Laplanders  and  Fins 
of  Europe.  Thus,  under  the  direction  of  the  Saviour 
and  His  disciples,  the  gospel  was  confined  to  a frac- 
tional part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth;  and  this 
fractional  part  was  in  exact  proportion  to  its  popula- 
tion of  pure  whites;  while  there  were  not  only  tribe 
after  tribe,  and  nation  after  nation,  but  even  conti- 
nents to  which  the  gospel  was  not  sent  at  all.  In 
the  face  of  these-  significant  facts  it  is  pertinent  to 
inquire  where  the  modern  church  obtained  its  au- 
thority to  send  the  gospel  promiscuously  throughout 
the  globe.  The  extension  of  the  gospel  to  the  ne- 
groes and  mixed-bloods  is  a plain  violation  of  Divine 
law,  and  is  due  solely  to  the  influence  of  atheism 
with  its  teaching  that  man  is  a highly  developed 
species  of  ape  of  which  the  white  is  the  highest,  and 
the  negro  the  lowest  race,  with  the  reds,  browns, 
and  yellows,  as  intermediate  races  in  different  stages 
of  development.  We  should  profit  by  the  sad  ex- 
perience of  every  nation  of  antiquity,  whose  ruined 
civilizations  testify  that  man’s  social,  political,  and 
religious  equality  with  the  negro  and  the  mixed- 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EYE. 


499 


bloods  inevitably  leads  to  amalgamation,  the  most 
loathsome,  destructive  crime  to  which  man  can  de- 
scend. The  fact  that  as  the  result  of  amalgamation 
our  population  of  supposed  whites  is  growing- 
darker;  and  that  our  population  of  supposed  ne- 
groes is  growing  lighter,  should  warn  us  that 
already  we  have  strayed  too  far  in  forbidden  paths; 
we  should  call  a halt,  ere  amalgamation  adds  our 
beloved  country  to  the  long  list  of  nations  whose 
wrecks  are  thickly  strewn  along  the  shores  of  time. 
Our  very  existence  as  a people  at  once  demands  that 
we  repudiate  the  false  teachings  which  have  brought 
us  to  the  verge  of  ruin,  and  promptly  return  to  first 
principles.  The  demoralizing  conditions  which  con- 
front us  on  every  side  should  enable  us  to  realize 
that  what  the  world  wants  is  primitive  Christianity; 
it  wants  a religious  system  based  squarely  on  the 
narrative  of  the  Divine  Creation,  and  not  on  the 
atheistic  theory  of  evolution;  it  wants  a religious 
system  that  will  bring  our  social,  political,  and  re- 
ligious systems  into  harmony  with  the  laws  of  God; 
it  wants  a religious  system  that  will  recognize  and 
respect  the  broad  distinction  which  God  made  in 
the  Creation  between  man  and  the  animals;  and 
any  religious  system  which  declines  to  meet  these 
requirements  is  simply  a delusion  and  a snare. 


THE  END. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED 


Abereombie,  Dr.,  310 
Adams,  99 
Adams,  C.  K.,  490 
Agassiz,  269 
Allen,  163 

Alexander,  Stephen,  102 
Anaximander,  472 
Anaximenes,  472 

Anthropology  for  the  People,  185, 
265,  267,  275,  276,  277 
Annbis,  31 
Archimedes,  100 
Argyll,  Duke  of,  125 
Aristotle,  99,  472 
Bachaot,  247 

Ball,  Sir  Robert,  68,  69,  76,  97, 
107,  144,  148 
Bancroft,  443,  448 
Barrow,  Dr.  M.  L.,  284 
Belt,  175 
Bennett,  184,  192 
Bextorf,  386 
Bey,  Primer,  164,  280 
Blumenbach,  201,  341 
Bonniot,  R.  P.  de,  181 
Bonbourg,  l’Abbe  Brasseur  de,  450 
Bouills,  351 
Brehm,  17S 
Bristow,  H.  W.,  89 
Broca,  268,  269,  279 
Brown,  Robert,  89 
Brown,  Dr.,  266 
Bruno,  56,  97 


Burmeister,  27S 
Burroughs,  193 
Callisthenes,  99 
Camper,  280 
Cartright,  Dr.  S.  A.,  274 
Catlin,  449 
Chalmers,  46 
Charnay,  Desare,  444,  445 
Clark.  Adam,  385 
Colquhoun, 175 
Cuvier,  201 

Dana,  122,  127,  136,  158,  162.  166, 
168,  211,  214,  215 

Darwin,  171, 183,  231,  25S,  316,  318, 
319,  322,  325,  327,  328,  329,  330, 
335 

Dawson,  50,  104,  11S,  125,  137, 158, 
187,  241,  242 
Democritus,  472 
Donnelly,  99,  176,  443,  444,  445 
Dupaix,  445 
Empedocles,  472 
Ennis,  104,  115 
Figuier,  90,  11S,  127 
Fontaine,  449 
Galileo,  97 

Geronniere,  De  la,  463 
Gillett,  Charles  R.,491 
Goethe,  299 
Goldburg,  260 
Gollins,  390 
Goodrich,  99 
Gratiolet,  273 


501 


502 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE, 


Guyot,  41,  43,  48,  59,  94,  102,  108, 
110,  118,  123,  187 

Haeckel,  49,  54,  94,  256,  257,  258, 
265,  286,  311,  315,  317,  319,  320, 
321,  325,  336,  338,  340,  341,  342, 
472 

Hall,  327,  329 
Harny,  277 
Hartman,  278 
Hays,  Dr.,  171 
Hayward,  444 
Hendree,  283 
Heraclitus,  472 
Herschel,  Sir  John,  45,  96 
Hooker,  Sir  Joseph,  133 
Hopkins,  Dr.,  120 
Houzeau,  173 
Humbolt,  99,  176,  261,  299 
Hunt,  S.  B.,  460 
Hutchinson,  Col.,  176 
Huxley,  116,  183,  192,  194,  205, 
284,  285,  319,  460,  463 
Jacquart,  282 
Josephus,  31,  100 
Kalidasa,  298,  300 
Kant,  318 
Keans,  264 
Kepler,  104,  106 

Kinns,  118,  123,  124,  132,  143,  159 
Kitto,  Dr.,  124 
Lallemand,  460 
La  Mark,  318 
La  Place,  102,  115,  137 
Layard,  100 

Lecompte,  l’Abbe,  A.,  181 
Lenormant,  426 
Leon,  Cieca  de,  444 
Le  Plongeon,  444 
Le  Verrier,  96,  109 
Linnaeus,  295 
Livingston,  Dr.,  129 
Logan,  137 

Luhbuck,  Sir  John,  125,  225 
Lyell,  Sir  Charles,  119,  133 
Macmillan,  356 


Maxwell,  James  Clerk,  44 
Michel,  Dr.  Middleton,  277 
Mitchell,  99 
Mitford,  William,  31 
Mohius,  172 

Morris,  225,  256,  259,  378 
Mosley,  282 
Newton,  104,  105,  106 
Origin,  100 
Owen,  159,  214 
Parker,  Theodore,  255 
Patterson,  Dr.,  43,  104 
Perthes,  Boucher  de,  372 
Plato,  471 
Pliny,  31 
Plutarch,  100 
Pollok,  17,  354,  383 
Pond,  J.,  115 
Popul  Vuh,  443 
Post-Dispatch,  449,  451 
Proctor,  108,  145,  150 
Quatrefages,  179,  262,  271,  272,  276 
279,  280,  282,  283,  348,  350,  450 
460 

Quenstedt,  257 
Reclus,  450 
Rengger,  175, 177 
Schaff,  243,  251 
Schimper,  178 
Soemmering,  2S0,  282 
Shakespeare,  135 
Smith,  Sir  William,  29,  242  , 245 
247,  310 
Solon,  471,  472 
Soudas,  31 
Starr,  451 

St.  John,  Sir  Spencer,  475 
Stephens,  445 
Taylor,  435 
Thales,  472 
Thurman,  269 

Topinard,  261,  263,  264,  265,  267 
273,  274,  280,  2S1,  350,  351 
458,  461 
Tyndall,  89,  91 


THE  TEMPTER  OF  EVE. 


503 


Universal  Dictionary,  143, 168,  245 
Universal  Cyclopedia,  211,  243, 
245,  490,  492 
Vemeau,  281 
Von  Meyer,  357 
Vrolik,  280 
Wallace,  178 
Webber,  281 
Webster,  168,  411 
Welker,  268 


Williams,  Monier,  299 
Wilmet,  390 
Wilson,  443 

Winehell,  258,  260,  265,  267,  268, 
272,  277,  279,  280,  281,  282, 
283,  284,  335,  445,  463,  488 
Wyman,  258 
Young,  Thomas,  113 
Young,  Robert,  309,  310 


Inasmuch  as  this  work  is  based  on  the  Bible,  the  inspired  authori- 
ties quoted  are  too  numerous  to  index. 


THE  ADAMIC  LIBRARY. 


As  the  result  of  amalgamation,  three  continents  of 
our  earth  with  their  civilizations  were  destroyed  by  Divine 
Edict  and  replaced  by  immense  oceans.  While  for  this 
crime  nation  after  nation,  under  the  curse  of  God,  has  dis- 
appeared from  the  remaining  continents,  leaving  little  or 
nothing  to  indicate  their  former  existence,  the  Scriptures, 
the  Sciences,  Profane  History,  Tradition,  the  evidence  fur- 
nished by  ancient  ruins  and  monuments  place  in  our  hands 
an  amount  of  data  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  write  an  ap- 
proximately correct  history  of  our  globe  from  the  Creation 
to  the  Twentieth  Century  of  the  Christian  Era.  This  in- 
valuable fund  of  information  will  be  given  to  the  world  for 
the  first  time  in  the  Adamic  Library.  This  Library  will  be 
composed  of  a series  of  books,  each  treating  of  different 
subjects  and  complete  in  itself. 

The  second  book  of  this  series  will  be  a work  on 
Spiritualism,  in  which  the  reality  and  evils  of  spiritualism 
will  be  fully  exposed.  By  Almina  Thomas. 

The  third  book  of  this  series  will  be  a work  on  the 
Book  of  Bevelation,  in  which  John's  figurative  language 
will  be  reduced  to  plain  English,  and  his  revelations  shown 
to  be  in  harmony  with  Profane  History,  Tradition,  and 
Modern  Science.  By  Charles  Carroll. 

The  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  books  of 
this  series  will  each  be  devoted  to  a history  of  one  of  the 
five  continents  from  the  Deluge  to  the  Twentieth  Century 
of  the  Christian  Era.  By  Charles  Carroll. 

Other  books  of  this  series  will  be  announced  later. 

These  books  will  contain  about  500  pages  each,  and 
will  be  bound  in  English  Silk  Cloth,  price  $2.00;  Buck- 
ram, price  $2.50;  Half  Morocco,  price  $3.00. 

ADAMIC  PUBLISHING  CO. 

ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 


Duke  University  Libraries 


D00404081 H 


326.9  03191  495151 

( -Carroll 


^6— iHfiEiplLfi-p  rtf1 


326.  S 


G319T 


495151 


